Comments on: There’s Not Yet Enough Backbone http://www.mkbergman.com/367/theres-not-yet-enough-backbone/ Mike Bergman on the semantic Web and structured Web Mon, 06 Feb 2012 00:15:33 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Seeking a Semantic Web Sweet Spot » AI3:::Adaptive Information http://www.mkbergman.com/367/theres-not-yet-enough-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-78540 Seeking a Semantic Web Sweet Spot » AI3:::Adaptive Information Mon, 21 Feb 2011 08:31:04 +0000 http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=367#comment-78540 [...] [...] [...] [...]

]]> By: Where are the Road Signs for the Structured Web? » AI3:::Adaptive Information http://www.mkbergman.com/367/theres-not-yet-enough-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-45150 Where are the Road Signs for the Structured Web? » AI3:::Adaptive Information Tue, 29 May 2007 22:19:37 +0000 http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=367#comment-45150 [...] As I discussed in an earlier posting, there's not yet enough backbone to the structured Web. I believe this structure should firstly be built around a lightweight subject- or topic-oriented reference layer. [...] [...] As I discussed in an earlier posting, there's not yet enough backbone to the structured Web. I believe this structure should firstly be built around a lightweight subject- or topic-oriented reference layer. [...]

]]> By: Mike http://www.mkbergman.com/367/theres-not-yet-enough-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-44958 Mike Wed, 02 May 2007 19:10:01 +0000 http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=367#comment-44958 Hi Sherman, I'm glad you like the vertebrae analogy. In some subsequent pieces I'm working on I extend the analogy to also relate to how other specific domains -- the many other body parts in the organism -- also tie into ("hang off of") this backbone structure. What I'm really thinking about is a simple, <strong>lightweight binding structure</strong> to which any and all third-party ontologies and structures can reference in relation to their <strong>subject coverage</strong>. This would greatly aid such things as guiding queries to SPARQL endpoints, collaborative P2P frameworks such as DBin, prompting vocabularies and structures for newly developed ontologies, etc. I also totally concur with your views on context. But even in the case of an ambiguous term such as "driver", an appropriate subject structure could have many placements related to golf, printers, automobilies. screws, NASCAR, whatever. In fact, such structure itself helps guide the context by virtue of which branches in the subject tree are of primary interest (i.e., enables disambiguation). (I'm also not ignoring relatedness, one reason why I like SKOS as reference schema.) I'd be curious to know how we could direct the NLP tool you have written, Cypher, to Wikipedia, Cyc, and WordNet to make this happen. Interested? Mike Hi Sherman,

I’m glad you like the vertebrae analogy. In some subsequent pieces I’m working on I extend the analogy to also relate to how other specific domains — the many other body parts in the organism — also tie into (“hang off of”) this backbone structure. What I’m really thinking about is a simple, lightweight binding structure to which any and all third-party ontologies and structures can reference in relation to their subject coverage. This would greatly aid such things as guiding queries to SPARQL endpoints, collaborative P2P frameworks such as DBin, prompting vocabularies and structures for newly developed ontologies, etc.

I also totally concur with your views on context. But even in the case of an ambiguous term such as “driver”, an appropriate subject structure could have many placements related to golf, printers, automobilies. screws, NASCAR, whatever. In fact, such structure itself helps guide the context by virtue of which branches in the subject tree are of primary interest (i.e., enables disambiguation). (I’m also not ignoring relatedness, one reason why I like SKOS as reference schema.)

I’d be curious to know how we could direct the NLP tool you have written, Cypher, to Wikipedia, Cyc, and WordNet to make this happen. Interested?

Mike

]]> By: Sherman Monroe http://www.mkbergman.com/367/theres-not-yet-enough-backbone/comment-page-1/#comment-44957 Sherman Monroe Wed, 02 May 2007 17:37:11 +0000 http://www.mkbergman.com/?p=367#comment-44957 I really like the use of a vertbrae analogy, because if you think about a backbone, each disc is seperately very ridge and provides alot of strength, but the loose links between the discs is what gives the backbone its flexibility. Likewise, the ultimate solution will need to provide a lot of (formal) structure and consistency, but be flexible enough to encompass all the different ways people will use and apply knowledge in the Semweb. Open collaboration of ontology development, e.g. a <em>Wikitology</em>, is one way to bring ontologies out of the silos and vacuums in which they are currently being created. Wikipedia is an example that such an approach can provide the consensus and the mass needed, both in bredth, and dept of this backbone. I also think one thing missing from your analysis is context. Take your Automobile example. In some contexts and for some users, for instance a user looking up an automobile's history, a nameplate would be a "natural" property of a car, and the interface should mold around that and other properties. But for other contexts and users, for example a metal scrap yard owner looking up vehicles in his inventory, other "views" of car are more appropriate (weight for example). So the backbone (e.g. wikitology) will need to account for this kind of context, allowing and allow users to switch from one context to another as they transverse the data in this structured web. I really like the use of a vertbrae analogy, because if you think about a backbone, each disc is seperately very ridge and provides alot of strength, but the loose links between the discs is what gives the backbone its flexibility. Likewise, the ultimate solution will need to provide a lot of (formal) structure and consistency, but be flexible enough to encompass all the different ways people will use and apply knowledge in the Semweb. Open collaboration of ontology development, e.g. a Wikitology, is one way to bring ontologies out of the silos and vacuums in which they are currently being created. Wikipedia is an example that such an approach can provide the consensus and the mass needed, both in bredth, and dept of this backbone. I also think one thing missing from your analysis is context. Take your Automobile example. In some contexts and for some users, for instance a user looking up an automobile’s history, a nameplate would be a “natural” property of a car, and the interface should mold around that and other properties. But for other contexts and users, for example a metal scrap yard owner looking up vehicles in his inventory, other “views” of car are more appropriate (weight for example). So the backbone (e.g. wikitology) will need to account for this kind of context, allowing and allow users to switch from one context to another as they transverse the data in this structured web.

]]>