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