Fwd: Re: [wikicite-discuss] Entity tagging and fact extraction (from a scholarly publisher perspective) - Wikidata

11 Nov 2016

---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
Da: "Marco Fossati" &lt;fossati(a)fbk.eu&gt;
Data: 11 nov 2016 1:23 PM
Oggetto: Fwd: Re: [wikicite-discuss] Entity tagging and fact extraction
(from a scholarly publisher perspective)
A: "Marco Fossati" &lt;fossati(a)spaziodati.eu&gt;
Cc:

---------- Messaggio inoltrato ----------
Da: "Marco Fossati" &lt;fossati(a)fbk.eu&gt;
Data: 11 nov 2016 1:18 PM
Oggetto: Re: [wikicite-discuss] Entity tagging and fact extraction (from a
scholarly publisher perspective)
A: "Andrew Smeall" &lt;andrew.smeall(a)hindawi.com&gt;
Cc: "Dario Taraborelli" &lt;dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org&gt;rg>, "Benjamin
Good" <
ben.mcgee.good(a)gmail.com&gt;gt;, "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." <
wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt;gt;, "wikicite-discuss" <
wikicite-discuss(a)wikimedia.org&gt;gt;, "Daniel Mietchen" <
daniel.mietchen(a)googlemail.com&gt;

Hi everyone,

Just a couple of thoughts, which are in line with Dario's first message:
1. the primary sources tool lets third party providers release *full
datasets* in a rather quick way. It is conceived to (a) ease the ingestion
of *non-curated* data and to (b) make the community directly decide which
statements should be included, instead of eventually complex a priori
discussions.
Important: the datasets should comply with the Wikidata vocabulary/ontology.

2. I see the mix'n'match tool as a way to *link* datasets with Wikidata via
ID mappings, thus only requiring statements that say "Wikidata entity X
links to the third party dataset entity Y".
This is pretty much what the linked data community has been doing so far.
No need to comply with the Wikidata vocabulary/ontology.

Best,

Marco

Il 11 nov 2016 10:27 AM, "Andrew Smeall" &lt;andrew.smeall(a)hindawi.com&gt; ha
scritto:

...
  Regarding the topics/vocabularies issue:

 A challenge we're working on is finding a set of controlled vocabularies
 for all the subject areas we cover.

 We do use MeSH for those subjects, but this only applies to about 40% of
 our papers. In Engineering, for example, we've had more trouble finding an
 open taxonomy with the same level of depth as MeSH. For most internal
 applications, we need 100% coverage of all subjects.

 Machine learning for concept tagging is trendy now, partly because it
 doesn't require a preset vocabulary, but we are somewhat against this
 approach because we want to control the mapping of terms and a taxonomic
 hierarchy can be useful. The current ML tools I've seen can match to a
 controlled vocabulary, but then they need the publisher to supply the terms.

 The temptation to build a new vocabulary is strong, because it's the
 fastest way to get to something that is non-proprietary and universal. We
 can merge existing open vocabularies like MeSH and PLOS to get most of the
 way there, but we then need to extend that with concepts from our corpus.

 Thanks Daniel and Benjamin for your responses. Any other feedback would be
 great, and I'm always happy to delve into issues from the publisher
 perspective if that can be helpful.

 On Fri, Nov 11, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Dario Taraborelli <
 dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

  Benjamin – agreed, I too see Wikidata as mainly a
place to hold all the
 mappings. Once we support federated queries in WDQS, the benefit of ID
 mapping (over extensive data ingestion) will become even more apparent.

 Hope Andrew and other interested parties can pick up this thread.

 On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Benjamin Good &lt;ben.mcgee.good(a)gmail.com&gt;
 wrote:

  Dario,

 One message you can send is that they can and should use existing
 controlled vocabularies and ontologies to construct the metadata they want
 to share.  For example, MeSH descriptors would be a good way for them to
 organize the 'primary topic' assertions for their articles and would make
 it easy to find the corresponding items in Wikidata when uploading.  Our
 group will be continuing to expand coverage of identifiers and concepts
 from vocabularies like that in Wikidata - and any help there from
 publishers would be appreciated!

 My view here is that Wikidata can be a bridge to the terminologies and
 datasets that live outside it - not really a replacement for them.  So, if
 they have good practices about using shared vocabularies already, it should
 (eventually) be relatively easy to move relevant assertions into the
 WIkidata graph while maintaining interoperability and integration with
 external software systems.

 -Ben

 On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 8:31 AM, 'Daniel Mietchen' via wikicite-discuss <
 wikicite-discuss(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:

  I'm traveling (
https://twitter.com/EvoMRI/status/793736211009536000
 ), so just in brief:
 In terms of markup, some general comments are in
 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK159964/ , which is not specific
 to Hindawi but partly applies to them too.

 A problem specific to Hindawi (cf.
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Media_from_Hindawi) is the
 bundling of the descriptions of all supplementary files, which
 translates into uploads like
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evolution-of-Coronar
 y-Flow-in-an-Experimental-Slow-Flow-Model-in-Swines-Angiogra
 phic-and-623986.f1.ogv
 (with descriptions for nine files)
 and eight files with no description, e.g.
 https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Evolution-of-Coronar
 y-Flow-in-an-Experimental-Slow-Flow-Model-in-Swines-Angiogra
 phic-and-623986.f2.ogv
 .

 There are other problems in their JATS, and it would be good if they
 would participate in
 http://jats4r.org/ . Happy to dig deeper with Andrew or whoever is
 interested.

 Where they are ahead of the curve is licensing information, so they
 could help us set up workflows to get that info into Wikidata.

 In terms of triple suggestions to Wikidata:
 - as long as article metadata is concerned, I would prefer to
 concentrate on integrating our workflows with the major repositories
 of metadata, to which publishers are already posting. They could help
 us by using more identifiers (e.g. for authors, affiliations, funders
 etc.), potentially even from Wikidata (e.g. for keywords/ P921, for
 both journals and articles) and by contributing to the development of
 tools (e.g. a bot that goes through the CrossRef database every day
 and creates Wikidata items for newly published papers).
 - if they have ways to extract statements from their publication
 corpus, it would be good if they would let us/ ContentMine/ StrepHit
 etc. know, so we could discuss how to move this forward.
 d.

 On Wed, Nov 2, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Dario Taraborelli
 &lt;dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote:
 > I'm at the Crossref LIVE 16 event in London where I just gave a
 presentation
 > on WikiCite and Wikidata targeted at scholarly publishers.
 >
 > Beside Crossref and Datacite people, I talked to a bunch of folks
 interested
 > in collaborating on Wikidata integration, particularly from PLOS,
 Hindawi
 > and Springer Nature. I started an interesting discussion with Andrew
 Smeall,
 > who runs strategic projects at Hindawi, and I wanted to open it up to
 > everyone on the lists.
 >
 > Andrew asked me if – aside from efforts like ContentMine and StrepHit
 –
 > there are any recommendations for publishers (especially OA
 publishers) to
 > mark up their contents and facilitate information extraction and
 entity
 > matching or even push triples to Wikidata to be considered for
 ingestion.
 >
 > I don't think we have a recommended workflow for data providers for
 > facilitating triple suggestions to Wikidata, other than leveraging the
 > Primary Sources Tool. However, aligning keywords and terms with the
 > corresponding Wikidata items via ID mapping sounds like a good first
 step. I
 > pointed Andrew to Mix'n'Match as a handy way of mapping identifiers,
 but if
 > you have other ideas on how to best support 2-way integration of
 Wikidata
 > with scholarly contents, please chime in.
 >
 > Dario
 >
 > --
 >
 > Dario Taraborelli  Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
 > wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
 >
 > --
 > WikiCite 2016 – May 26-26, 2016, Berlin
 > Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016
 > Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite16
 > ---
 > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups
 > "wikicite-discuss" group.
 > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
 send an
 > email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe(a)wikimedia.org.

 --
 WikiCite 2016 – May 26-26, 2016, Berlin
 Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016
 Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite16
 ---
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups "wikicite-discuss" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe(a)wikimedia.org.

 --

 *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
 wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
 <http://twitter.com/readermeter>

 --
 WikiCite 2016 – May 26-26, 2016, Berlin
 Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016
 Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite16
 ---
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 "wikicite-discuss" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe(a)wikimedia.org.

 --
 ------------------------------
 Andrew Smeall
 Head of Strategic Projects

 Hindawi Publishing Corporation
 Kirkman House
 12-14 Whitfield Street, 3rd Floor
 London, W1T 2RF
 United Kingdom
 ------------------------------

 --
 WikiCite 2016 – May 26-26, 2016, Berlin
 Meta: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiCite_2016
 Twitter: https://twitter.com/wikicite16
 ---
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 "wikicite-discuss" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to wikicite-discuss+unsubscribe(a)wikimedia.org.