1. as mentioned several times, a standard for us to be considered must be free. Free as in "Everyone can get it without having to pay or register for it. I can give it to anyone legally without any restrictions." Free of patents. Free as in W3C.
2. I have taken another look at your page, and after starting to read it you simply loose me. You use so many terms without defining them. To give just a few examples: * "The NIF ontology is incorporated into the ontology for Wikitopics which shapes API designs." I do not know what the Wikitopics ontology is. The section beneath just lists a few keywords, but does not really explain it. I do not know what it means for ontologies to incorporate one another. I do not know what it means for an ontology to shape API designs. * "Wikipage naming conventions are used to name subobjects in an equally meaningful manner". Equally meaningful? To what? What does this even mean? You completely lost me here. * For the key wikipage transclusions, you do not explain what a "formatted topic presentation" is, a "formatted topic index", or a "formatted infobox". I think I understand the latter, but not the previous two. What are they? And if I indeed understand it right, are you saying that infoboxes have to be completely formatted in Wikidata, as Gregor has asked?
Hello Denny,
1. There are likely several ways to accommodate your process requirements. And btw, I asked last month but received no response for a citation to relevant MWF policy on this issue, to detect whether your statement reflects the team's ELECTIVE policy or a MWF policy. Where's the benefit from imposing expenses magnitudes greater on everyone, to design develop & socialize solutions already known? And please mention how the wikidata community can be assured that the wikidata team's designs themselves don't infringe someone else's patent or copyright, a reassurance that would directly follow from MWF's purchase of rights to use an ISO standard.
2a. Surely you appreciate that Wikidata involves fielding ''some'' ontology, at least as suggested by your intention to include the (SMW) Property namespace. I don't know when you plan to publish wikidata's ontology, but certainly it must be done so overtly and soon, agile or not. I agree the ontology I proposed needs much fleshing out, but chief goals of the proposed ontology are pretty clear -- to provide a wiki-topic index, to support NIF tools directly, to capture provenance data, to reuse existing SMW tools and key international standards, and to establish various best-practices for the wider community.
2b. An ontology that 'shapes/controls API interfaces' means that the APIs' information model must align with the information model represented by the ontology. If the ontology includes an expiration-date as a required property, for instance, then the API needs to include an expiration-date as a required parameter in some fashion.
2c. One ontology incorporating another is perhaps a clumsy way to describe the process of associating a class or property defined in one ontology, to another in a different ontology, either through a subclass/subproperty relation or a documented or implemented transform.
2d."Equally meaningful" as the wiki-page naming conventions are, eg interwiki:lang:ns:pgnm is quite meaningful ... I am proposing SMW subobjects be named similarly, eg scope:lang:type:name, is the proposed structure for SMW subobject names.
2e. A 'formatted topic presentation' is the content displayed on a page for a topic. Wikidata will have a page called (Main:)Thomas Jefferson that displays a formatted topic presentation, showing information harvested from other wikis plus any information developed by the wikidata community itself. Using transclusion, anyone can embed (Main:)Thomas Jefferson into their wiki. A 'formatted topic index' (which certainly can be one part of a topic's formatted presentation) is a snippet that corresponds to the "Thomas Jefferson" heading in a subject index under which are many subtopics eg Jefferson, Thomas [1] [2] [3] -- Early years [4] [5] [6] -- Birth [7] [8] -- Formative influences [9] [10] -- etc
2f. Perhaps you missed my immediate reply [1] to Gregor. Yes all infoboxes (among other non/formatted artifacts) are '''transcluded''' from wikidata, without the nonsense of cross-wiki API calls for individual data-items, as I understand the wikidata team is now gearing to provide.
Best regards - jmc
[1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2012-May/000588.html , for instance