Comments for uberblic.org http://uberblic.org Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:15:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on uberblic Search API – just enough semantics by Julius http://uberblic.org/2010/07/uberblic-search-api-just-enough-semantics/#comment-11 Julius Tue, 20 Jul 2010 19:15:23 +0000 http://uberblic.org/?p=446#comment-11 Georgi, that indirect autocomplete by specifying criteria blows my mind. I tried it and it even works with partial names, like: starring:[Ewan] starring:[Scarlett] Very awesome. Georgi, that indirect autocomplete by specifying criteria blows my mind. I tried it and it even works with partial names, like:

starring:[Ewan] starring:[Scarlett]

Very awesome.

]]> Comment on Feedback by Bob Ferris http://uberblic.org/feedback/#comment-4 Bob Ferris Tue, 06 Jul 2010 17:01:56 +0000 http://wordpress3.uberblic.org/#comment-4 Hi, Congrats to your 1.0 release of Uberblic. You federated an interesting mix of web information services. However, I do not really understand, why you also follow they way of DBpedia by creating an own ontology specification as T-Box basis. Why didn't you reuse specific, more or less well established domain ontologies and additionally reinforce thereby their integration in the whole distributed database of the Linked Data project? I don't see an added value, if everyone is using his/her own ontology specification, which describes at the end the same things. I know one could still match A-Boxes. However, we also know that T-Box matching is faster than A-Box matching and if we make use of the same (domain) ontologies, then we even don't need T-Boxes matchings (or save at least many T-Box matchings). What you've done (from my point of view), is that you've created a nice federated knowledge base on important and well established information service - however, with an smaller reuse effect, because you used your own ontology specification, where ontology reutilization (and mapping/alignment) could be applied. Cheers, Bob Hi,

Congrats to your 1.0 release of Uberblic. You federated an interesting mix of web information services. However, I do not really understand, why you also follow they way of DBpedia by creating an own ontology specification as T-Box basis. Why didn’t you reuse specific, more or less well established domain ontologies and additionally reinforce thereby their integration in the whole distributed database of the Linked Data project? I don’t see an added value, if everyone is using his/her own ontology specification, which describes at the end the same things. I know one could still match A-Boxes. However, we also know that T-Box matching is faster than A-Box matching and if we make use of the same (domain) ontologies, then we even don’t need T-Boxes matchings (or save at least many T-Box matchings). What you’ve done (from my point of view), is that you’ve created a nice federated knowledge base on important and well established information service – however, with an smaller reuse effect, because you used your own ontology specification, where ontology reutilization (and mapping/alignment) could be applied.

Cheers,

Bob

]]>