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.
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