Kingsley, (01)
I agree with you that DBpedia is a very large database with a very
large amount of information that can support a significant amount
of question answering and reasoning about the answers. (02)
I also agree that Schema.org is a hierarchy of terms that do not
contain anything that resembles the facts contained in DBpedia. (03)
But note that Schema.org contains a lot OWL-level specifications,
including the GoodRelations ontologies. That is the point I was
making in the following statement: (04)
JFS
>> The DBpedia terms are at the same level of vagueness as Schema.org. (05)
KI
> No they aren't. You can reason using the DBpedia ontology, you can't
> using Schema.org without using some post processing to fix all its
> denotation related ambiguities. (06)
Could you give some examples of similar terms -- as specified
in DBpedia and in Schema.org. And show what post processing you
need to do with the Schema.org terms to resolve the ambiguities. (07)
John (08)
_________________________________________________________________
Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J (09)
|