jamie

Web Ontology: Web Ontology (RDF possiblites)

2008-08-06T03:20:29.0012Z

Thanks Jamie, I really got inspired by the domain you created.

The reasons why I linked equivalent classes to topics are two-fold. First, I wasn't able to create reverse properties from a Type as easily as I could to my own Ontology Class type. More importantly though, I wanted to link multiple ontologies together as well as with Freebase.

By linking classes to topics, it means that you can search for a topic like Country and get a list of equivalent ontology classes from many different ontologies. My intention was that these topics would then by typed as Type/Domain Equivalent topics as many of them already are. You can also leverage the Also Known As property of those topics to help map ontologies together. As you mentioned, it would probably be a good idea to do something similar for properties.

Ideally I would like to map Freebase to UMBEL because they have mappings to Cyc, Dbpedia and other ontologies. I am starting to write some code to help map the 1,300 or so top level Freebase Types onto the 20,000 UMBEL concepts but that will take some time.

I'd be happy to do what I can to get more people using Freebase as a common ground for ontology mapping.

Web Ontology: Web Ontology (RDF possiblites)

2008-08-05T23:41:48.0022Z

Shawn - this is really cool. You really took this to the next level. I especially like the ontology_attribute_mapping taking not only a property but a type (indicating when the property mapping applies. Alexb suggested this to me a while back - but I never got around to adding it!)

I'm not sure that I fully appreciate the ontology_class_mapping connecting with general Freebase Topics. Do you have a specific use in mind for that relationship?

One thing I had toyed with (on sandbox a few months ago) was adding the ability to map not just Freebase to other ontologies, but allowing multiple ontologies to be mapped together. I think it begs for ontology properties to be represented as objects themselves that can be linked together.

Have you written any code against this?

I'd love to collaborate on this if you are interested and see if we can get a larger community involved (and using it!)

Jamie

Web Ontology: Web Ontology (RDF possiblites)

2008-08-04T18:14:04.0012Z

I've been playing with some RDF mapping in my own domain as well. It's similar to jamie's but with a few extra features.

Web Ontology: Ontology Type

2008-07-17T00:40:52.0005Z

Would it be possible to add a property to the Ontology type so that you can define equivalent types the same way that you can define equivalent properties?

For example, you could map the foaf:Person class to the /people/person type.

Web Ontology: Web Ontology (RDF possiblites)

2008-06-24T11:37:04.0000Z

http://clockwerx.blogspot.com/2008/06/how-to-extract-useful-owl-from-freebase.html is kinda relevant to this discussion

Web Ontology: Web Ontology (RDF possiblites)

2008-06-14T19:57:51.0007Z

Which is why I started by mentioning your Social domain ;)

Web Ontology: Web Ontology (RDF possiblites)

2008-06-14T10:34:46.0007Z

Ah, the foaf ontology looks especially interesting.

Web Ontology: Web Ontology (RDF possiblites)

2008-06-13T07:18:01.0005Z

Hey,

It looks like you have some pretty neat little modeling projects going on. I especially like the social domain you have, because it ties into why I'm writing this post in the first place. :)

Obviously, you seem to have an interest in RDF, so I would highly recommend that you take a look at Jamie Taylor's web_ontology type (http://www.freebase.com/view/user/jamie/web_ontology/ontology). There will probably be some schema changes soon (including a type with the freebase equivalence) and hopefully the schema will be made to reflect RDFS more closely. Basically the idea is to model the relationship between an RDF schema and (a) freebase schema(s). This combined with some tooling, will make it possible to both import and export RDF, and since RDFS is RDF itself, make it possible to easily add new schemas (with someone coming in and filling in the freebase equivalence entries for it).

jamie: BR_ESTATE

2008-03-19T20:51:36.0000Z

The sidebar can only display 50 types. To view the other types, click the symbol to the left of the word "Types" at the top of the list, and select "view all".

jamie: BR_ESTATE

2008-03-19T19:39:00.0005Z

Hi Jamie,

Could you add BR_ESTATE on side menu bar at Locations?

http://www.freebase.com/view/location/br_state

I working on it and ask for some friends to help, but without link the job is more complicate.

Tnks

Paulo Colacino

Sailboat Rig: Can I add topics to this type?

2007-08-24T19:09:09.0012Z

Hi Jamie,

Can I add topics to this type? If not, take a look at what I've got listed under "Tall ship rig"; we probably want to get them all into your type. Do you think "sailboat rig" is still the appropriate title for the type if they're merged? I find it hard to conceive of a fully-rigged three-masted ship as a "sailboat".

K.

jamie: Tall ships and sailing boats

2007-08-18T14:19:47.0011Z

Hi Jamie,

I see you're doing some work around sailing vessels. I've been adding types related to tall ships and related subjects. We should chat!

I'm quite new here, and not entirely sure how developed this comment system is and whether it's a good place to chat, but please feel free to email me at skud@infotrope.net.

K.

Varietal Species: Grape?

2007-07-31T11:17:11.0004Z

Is this another way to say "grape"?

Boat: New proposed schema for ships and subs

2007-06-12T22:13:51.0006Z

One more note - I don't have a good model for complement yet, so I've punted on it. Some sources list the total, and others break it down by officers and enlisted men (still others add things like marines, fighter pilots, and even research scientists).

Boat: New proposed schema for ships and subs

2007-06-12T20:47:43.0006Z

Good point. This data goes into the ship class type. For one-off ships like the Bounty, I think it makes sense to make the topic both the ship and the class, so all the data is visible in one place. So I've added the ship class type to this topic along with the data above. Let me know what you think,

Boat: New proposed schema for ships and subs

2007-06-12T19:34:08.0006Z

I noticed that the Bounty article had some additional data that could be turned into properties if these were common data people always expected to see on ships:

* Displacement: 215 tons
* Length: 91 ft (27.7 m)
* Beam: 24 feet (7.3 m)
* Complement: 46

I assume that modern ships have these values as well?

Boat: prototype design pattern

2007-06-12T19:29:17.0011Z

Seems like this is an example (sans behaviors) of the prototype design pattern.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype-based_programming

Boat: New proposed schema for ships and subs

2007-06-06T17:54:26.0011Z

I put the boat schema in drydock for an overhaul. The new modified types are in my user domain pending review here before I move them to this domain.

Examples of ships with the new scheme:

HMS/HMAV Bounty

USS Cobia

Emma Maersk

Schema notes

Here are the big changes from the older Boat schema.

I've marked the new schema names with version numbers temporarily to make it easier to track what's new:

New schema:

Ship v1.1 (successor to Boat)

Warship v1.1 (co-typed as Ship, successor to War Ship)

New supporting schema:

Ship class v1.0

Warship crew tenure (used by Warship v1.1)

Ship powerplant system (used by Ship class v1.0)

Modified schema:

Submarine class (co-typed as Ship class v 1.0)

Deleted schema:

Submarine (superseded by Warship, Submarine Class)

War Ship: Who has served on a war ship

2007-06-04T18:07:04.0006Z

Very good point. I'll add this to the schema.

Boat: Boats and submarines - some thoughts on classes of ships

2007-06-01T00:23:19.0006Z

That works for me.

Boat: Boats and submarines - some thoughts on classes of ships

2007-05-31T23:25:12.0006Z

The bit under "boat" above are the properties for the boat type.

Boat: Boats and submarines - some thoughts on classes of ships

2007-05-31T23:24:22.0006Z

Agreed. I'm thinking that boat class would have things like:

Topic: USS Steinaker:

- class name: Gearing Class Destroyer
- displacement: 3460 tons
- speed: 36.8 knots
- length, overall: 33m
[etc]

boat
- builder: Bethlehem Steel, Staten Island NY
- keel laid: September 1 1944
- launched: February 13 1945

Boat: Boats and submarines - some thoughts on classes of ships

2007-05-31T22:40:35.0006Z

This sounds like a sensible solution to me, assuming that there are properties that will be common to all (or most) boats that should go in "boat class", as opposed to the existing "warship class" and "sailboat class" types.

Boat: Boats and submarines - some thoughts on classes of ships

2007-05-31T22:29:30.0011Z

I've been thinking a lot about boats lately, and how to account for classes of ships - for instance, the Gato class submarines, which have several hundred instances and yet share many of the same attributes.

Summary of the issue: the boat schema has no concept of the class of a boat, and assigns properties to the specific boat. The submarine class I've developed uses a class type heavily, and the class contains many of the "as designed" features. To harmonize the two schema, I'm proposing that boat only take properties that apply to an instance of boat (i.e: builder, keel laid, launched), and that a new schema, boat class, take properties that apply to an entire class of boats (i.e: designed, displacement, draft, length).

If we do this, then I can co-type submarine-class as boat-class, and submarine as boat, and be able to move many properties from submarine* to the more general boat* schema.

The reason I'm in favor of putting many properties on the class level is that many boats are created in production runs and so share attributes. It would aid our users and our coverage to put these properties at the class level (so, for instance, I could enter the properties of Gato-class submarines once rather than once for each of several hundred instances).

So, long story short, I'll be making changes to the boat type to introduce a new boat class type. Some of the properties of boat will move to the new type. I'll work on this over on the sandbox first, and will post a note here and to our developer list when the new schema are ready.

If anyone has thoughts on these proposals, please post here. Thank you.

jamie: Apologies

2007-05-10T05:30:34.0014Z

I found and read what I was supposed to. Thanks.

jamie: How to typefy CSS

2007-05-10T04:27:45.0012Z

Jamie,
With the current selection of types, the CSS topic will remain an orphan. Do you think somebody on your side could create a type for Web Development , or something along these lines - other than Programming Languages? Thank you for the freebase!

jamie: How to typefy CSS

2007-05-10T04:24:30.0006Z

Jamie,
A topic called CSS (Cascading style sheets) is an orphan with the current selection of types. Do you think somebody on your side create a type, other than Programming Languages? I understand, that a dedicated type for Stylesheet Languages might be an overkill, so maybe Web Development?

War Ship: Who has served on a war ship

2007-05-03T05:13:35.0012Z

It would be nice to have a property that allowed me to specify a list of people who served a particular war ship, indicating when they served (from date x to date y), and in what position (captain, boatswain, first class boy, etc).

jamie: seeing double

2007-02-23T00:23:02.0006Z

Two heads are better than one!

jamie: seeing double

2007-02-22T23:02:29.0011Z

is it just me or is your picture showing up twice?

Jersey Girl: There is another Jersey Girl already

2007-01-19T06:57:31.0006Z

Robert, please use the 'duplicate' feature described in the help portion of our site. Thanks.

Jersey Girl: There is another Jersey Girl already

2007-01-19T04:49:46.0000Z

My mistake. They are two different films. Go figure.

Jersey Girl: There is another Jersey Girl already

2007-01-19T04:47:43.0011Z

This should be merged with it.