Should we have more than one ontology? It depends on what you want to do with your
ontology(s). Multiple logically incompatible ontologies are now built and used by
different groups that have no need to communicate with each other. But when they do want
to communicate, the incompatibility creates big problems.
Different points of view can be represented by different theories (or 'beliefs) using
the same common set of basic terms (i.e. within a single, logically sound ontology). This
is the best way, so that the ways in which theories or beliefs actually differ can be
precisely specified using a common universally understood vocabulary. In fact, if we
didn't have a commonly understood set of basic terms, we would never be able to tell
that we have different theories or beliefs or how they differ.
The benefits of a logically sound ontology as contrasted with a controlled terminology are
the ability to do logical inferencing. In the classic example, if Jack and Joe both have
the same parents we can infer that they are siblings. It gets a lot more complicated, and
more useful. Therefore it is possible to have all local ontologies represented by a
common logical language (i.e. a common foundation ontology). This provide the local
flexibility to use terms and theories at will, while providing the maximum degree of
accurate communication between the local communities of users. When different communities
use different terms to mean the same thing, the common foundation ontology provides a
means for automatic translation. The DBpedia ontology could serve this purpose, and I
hope it is developed for that purpose, because the range of topics that it needs to
represent are unlimited. Why settle for anything less?
Pat
Patrick Cassidy
MICRA Inc.
cassidy(a)micra.com
908-561-3416
-----Original Message-----
From: wikidata-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikidata-l-
bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jane Darnell
Sent: Monday, May 06, 2013 12:14 PM
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project.
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories.
Yes, there is and should be more than one "ontology", and that is
already the case with categories, which are so flexible they can loop
around and become their own grandfather.
Dbpedia complaints should be discussed on that list, I am not a dbpedia
user, though I think it's a useful project to have around.
Sent from my iPad
On May 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt
<jc(a)sahnwaldt.de> wrote:
Hi Mathieu,
I think the DBpedia mailing list is a better place for discussing the
DBpedia ontology:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
Drop us a message if you have questions or concerns. I'm sure someone
will answer your questions. I am not an ontology expert, so I'll just
leave it at that.
JC
On 6 May 2013 11:01, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>
wrote:
> Le 2013-05-06 00:09, Jona Christopher
Sahnwaldt a écrit :
>
>> On 5 May 2013 20:48, Mathieu Stumpf <psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org>
wrote:
>>>
>>> Le dimanche 05 mai 2013 à 16:28 +0200, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt
a
>>>>
>>>> The ontology is maintained by a community that everyone can join
at
more
>>>> than welcome to help! I think
talk pages are not used enough on
the
>>>> mappings wiki, so if you have
ideas, misgivings or questions
about the
>>>> DBpedia ontology, the place to go
is probably the mailing list:
>>>>
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
>>>
>>>
>>> Do you maintain several "ontologies" in parallel? Otherwise, how
do you
>>> plane to avoid a "cultural
bias", and how do you think it may
impact the
>>> other projects? I mean, if you try to
establish "one semantic
hierarchy
>>> to rule them all", couldn't
it arise cultural diversity concerns?
>>
>>
>> We maintain only one version of the ontology. We have a pretty
diverse
>> community, so I hope the editors will
take care of that. So far,
the
>> ontology does have a Western bias though,
more or less like the
>> English Wikipedia or the current list of Wikidata properties.
>>
>> JC
>
>
>
> I can't see how your community could take care of it when they have
no
> choice but not contribute at all or
contribute to one ontology whose
> structure already defined main axes. To my mind, it's a structural
bias,
you
> can't go out of it without going out of
the structure. As far as I
> understand, the current "ontology"[1] you are using is a tree with a
central
> root, and not a DAG or any other graph. In my
humble opinion, if you
need a
> central element/leaf, it should be precisely
"ontology"/representation,
> under which one may build several world
representation networks, and
even
> more relations between this networks which
would represent how one
may links
> concepts of different cultures.
>
> To my mind the problem is much more important than with a local
Wikipedia
> (or other Wikimedia projects). Because each
project can expose
subjects
> through the collective representation of this
local community. But
with
> wikidata central role, isn't there a risk
of "short-circuit" this
local
> expressions?
>
> Also, what is your metric to measure a community diversity? I don't
want
to
> be pessimist, nor to look like I blame the
current wikidata
community, but
> it doesn't seems evident to me that it
currently represent human
diversity.
> I think that there are probably a lot of
economical/social/educational/etc
> barriers that may seems like nothing to
anyone already involved in
the
> wikidata community, but which are gigantic
for those
> non-part-of-the-community people.
>
> Now to give my own opinion of the representation/ontology you are
building,
> I would say that it's based on exactly
the opposite premisses I
would use.
> Wikidata Q1 is universe, then you have earth,
life, death and human,
and it
> seems to me that the ontology you are
building have the same
> anthropocentrist bias of the universe. To my mind, should I peak a
central
> concept to begin with, I would not take
universe, but perception,
because
> perceptions are what is given to you before
you even have a concept
for it.
> Even within solipsism you can't deny
perceptions (at least as long
as the
> solipcist pretend to exist, but if she
doesn't, who care about the
opinion
> of a non-existing person :P). Well I
wouldn't want to flood this
list with
> epistemological concerns, but it just to say
that even for a someone
like me
> that you may probably categorise as
western-minded, this "ontology"
looks
> like the opposite of my personal opinion on
the matter. I don't say
that I
> am right and the rest of the community is
wrong. I say that I doubt
that you
> can build an ontology which would fit every
cultural represantions
into a
> tree of concepts. But maybe it's not your
goal in the first place,
so you
> may explain me what is your goal then.
>
> [1] I use quotes because it's seems to me that what most IT people
call
an
ontology,
is what I would call a representation.
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l