Re: [DBpedia-discussion] Purpose of the DBpedia Ontology was Re: Call for Ontology Editor demos for DBpedia

[<ja...@pe...>]

You can keep the Occupation tree under person if you can live with the 
fact that these classes describe individuals, not occupations performed by 
Persons. A Senator is a Politician, but a Parliament is not, because it is 
an Organization. The Beatles is a Band  but not an Artist, and the same is 
true for Ballets and Orchestras.  If you keep organization roles and 
person roles under distinct trees, it works. Note that you will not be 
able to represent common daily roles such as Client or Employer this way, 
since these can be performed by any Agent, not only Persons. (Caligula's 
horse Incitatus being a Consul does not count.)

The English ver to be (and the French être, Russian быть etc) does not 
distinguish between being permanently and being temporarily, so maybe that 
is why we Portuguese (and Italian, Spanish etc) speakers note a bit of 
oddness in attaching temporary roles such as occupations with a permanent 
relation such as  IS-A.  We distinguish "ele _é_ empregado da Google" (he 
is permanently an employee of Google) from "ele _está_ empregado pela 
Google" (he is currently/temporarily employed by Google). 

You can argue that being a Writer is not exactly a role, since you are 
saying something permanent about the person, and I agree, this is the 
common sense. But you must guarantee that when a text is written by an 
Agent (a person, a group of writers, the Senate, a council), this will not 
imply that the Agent is a Writer. In other words, the subclasses of Person 
are not roles with attached actions, they are subkinds the kind Person. 
Also, they are not mixins, you cannot use these for subtyping from classes 
different than Person. There can be a RobotWriter, subclass of Robot, but 
it cannot be a subclass of Writer, because Person and Robot should be 
disjoint (for now). 

One should be aware of such limitations when matching equivalent classes 
in other more strict ontologies. The DBpedia ontology should never used 
out of the box except for simple queries, so it is nice to keep it simple 
and free of strong assertions that would hinder its use. However, if we 
define no constrains at all it may lead to the misinterpretation of some 
classes. Making Person and Organization disjoint classes is a must, to 
avoid bad subclassing.

Cheers.
=============================================
Marcelo Jaccoud Amaral
PETROBRAS
=============================================





De:     "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfp...@gm...>
Para:   Sebastian Hellmann <hel...@in...>, 
ja...@pe..., Paul Houle <pau...@on...>
Cc:     DBpedia <Dbp...@li...>
Data:   2017-07-17 09:55
Assunto:        Re: [DBpedia-discussion] Purpose of the DBpedia Ontology 
was Re: Call for Ontology Editor demos for DBpedia



One reason to have a subclass structure under Person (but also under any
natural kind) is to support generalizations for subcategories.  Many of 
the
subclasses of Person in DBpedia are for occupations, e.g., Architect, 
Athlete,
NascarDriver, Politician, and Senator.  If these subclasses of Person are
eliminated then there should be some way to retain that any senator is a
politician.

peter


On 07/11/2017 03:10 PM, Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
> Hi all,
[...]
> By the way, is there actually any sensible class that can be subclass of
> Person? As far as I see, the only essential distinction that lasts 
lifelong is
> fictious/non-fictious . We are thinking about disallowing subclasses of
> Person, unless there is a valid concern brought up.
> 
> Also it seems like we will not be able to handle all exceptions like 
spouse
> being non-functional for a dozen persons. From a practical perspective, 
if
> functionality is consistent for 95% of the data, this might be something 
we
> can live with. Proper documentation of these pitfalls can be given.
> 
> All the best,
> Sebastian
> 
> 



 
"O emitente desta mensagem é responsável por seu conteúdo e endereçamento. Cabe ao destinatário cuidar quanto ao tratamento adequado. Sem a devida autorização, a divulgação, a reprodução, a distribuição ou qualquer outra ação em desconformidade com as normas internas do Sistema Petrobras são proibidas e passíveis de sanção disciplinar, cível e criminal."
 
"The sender of this message is responsible for its content and addressing. The receiver shall take proper care of it. Without due authorization, the publication, reproduction, distribution or the performance of  any other action not conforming to Petrobras System internal policies and procedures is forbidden and liable to disciplinary, civil or criminal sanctions."
 
"El emisor de este mensaje es responsable por su contenido y direccionamiento. Cabe al destinatario darle el tratamiento adecuado. Sin la debida autorización, su divulgación, reproducción, distribución o cualquier otra acción no conforme a las normas internas del Sistema Petrobras están prohibidas y serán pasibles de sanción disciplinaria, civil y penal."