[HN Gopher] DBpedia Ontology
___________________________________________________________________
DBpedia Ontology
Author : belter
Score : 58 points
Date : 2022-12-21 12:19 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.dbpedia.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.dbpedia.org)
| yourapostasy wrote:
| I wonder how much cross-pollination with Cyc [1] can be
| performed, and how DBpedia's ~5M terms can be compared to Cyc's
| ~25M assertions?
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyc
| [deleted]
| danbruc wrote:
| Am I misunderstanding something or are DBpedia and Wikidata
| essentially trying to do the same thing?
| zozbot234 wrote:
| They're not the same thing. DBPedia is trying to extract
| structured information from the existing versions of Wikipedia,
| which are segregated by language and licensed under CC-by-sa.
| Wikidata is a newer project focused on providing high-quality
| structured data from scratch (labeled in any natural language),
| with a CC-0 license that's as close as legally possible to
| releasing them into the public domain.
| macrolime wrote:
| DBPedia is extracting data from infoboxes in Wikipedia, but
| increasingly Wikidata is the source of the data in the
| infoboxes.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| Is there a good example of what this is useful for? I'd love to
| see examples of where it is used. What does it do?
| nerdponx wrote:
| I've seen a handful of threads and articles in the last year or
| so about knowledge graphs, but I still don't understand what
| they're used for.
|
| I understand the idea, I think, but I don't know what problems
| they actually solve. When would I want to consider building a
| knowledge graph, or using an existing one in a project?
| nighthawk454 wrote:
| I think they can be good for factual queries and entity
| relations. One example is the Google Knowledge Graph which they
| use in Search [1].
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Knowledge_Graph
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| It feels a bit like a GOFAI way to teach machines to play
| chess-- through hand-organized human knowledge versus more
| successful approaches that rely on computational scale. At
| the same time, it feels like it could give large language
| models a sense of "truth."
| lufte wrote:
| I would say they are useful, specially against a relational
| database, when you have a ever-growing or dynamic amount of
| different entity types that are all related between each other.
| With a knowledge graph you only don't need to create new tables
| every time you define new entity types, you also can give
| semantic meaning to the relationships between them.
| jraph wrote:
| Related: Ontolex [1], an ontology for lexicons.
|
| Which DBnary [2], an RDF extract of the Wiktionary, uses. I
| worked on it almost 10 years ago during an internship during
| which I added support for extracting French inflections in the
| DBnary extractor. A colleague did German. It increased the size
| of DBnary a lot so it was an optional feature. I don't know the
| status of the project today. Back then, DBnary was based on the
| Lemon ontology, which apparently Ontolex extends and Ontolex is
| now a W3C standard, yay!
|
| I don't quite use such ontologies in my daily life knowingly, but
| I find them fascinating for some unknown reasons.
|
| [1] https://www.w3.org/2016/05/ontolex/
|
| [2] http://kaiko.getalp.org/about-dbnary/
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-21 23:01 UTC)