Hi,
Why decide for a (one) specific classification scheme in the first place,
anyways? When it comes to classifying literature in varios languges, e.g.,
we should use the existing systems of the big libraries for these
languages since:
- many people are already used to them, and they're in wide use
- they are comparatively easyly importable
- they are at least not very controversial :-)
- etc.
While it is obvious that claims and subclasses have to be appropiately
labelled (e.g. "Europa" of DNB is not "Europe" of LCSH despite the
fact
that they probably overlap 99.9%), it is obvious as well that we have to
have their roots. Thus I do not understand how we can decide to have
" main type (GND) " deleted, if thats the root of the GND classifications
of the German National library (DNB) which I assume. I did not follow the
discussion about its deletion, so, sorry if I am misinterpreteing
I would rather assume to have a most general "classification scheme"
property that collects all these individual ones.
Purodha
"Friedrich Röhrs" <f.roehrs(a)mis.uni-saarland.de>
Hi,
shouldn't the start be to decide what the
requirements towards the
classification scheme are? Without knowing what the goal for the
classification scheme should be it seems to me to be very hard
(or arbitrary) to look at different upper ontologies and say "hey
this one will fit our project". Also there might be some technical
limitations that need to be taken into account (while overviewing
the discussion i saw something about no binary properties).
Good day,Friedrich
On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 6:06 AM, emw <emw.wiki(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Wikidatans,
The conclusion of the 'Primary sorting property' RFC is that property P107 --
main type (GND) -- will be deleted [1, 2, 3]. The most popular option for replacing P107
is to use properties P31 and P279 ('instance of' and 'subclass of'), which
are based on rdf:type and rdfs:subclassOf [4, 5]. Unlike P107, which restricts the world
into seven high-level classes, 'instance of' and 'subclass of' give users
a flexible way to define an item's type. They also enable hierarchical
classification, and are in line with Semantic Web conventions.
While general agreement exists on that much, there's active discussion in the new
'Migrating away from GND main type' RFC [6] about precisely how we want to capture
P107 information with 'instance of' and 'subclass of'. P107 is
Wikidata's most popular property by a significant margin -- it's currently used in
4,237,061 claims -- so it's important that we get this right.
Many people on this list are knowledgeable about ontology and classification but not part
of the on-wiki commentariat that tends to populate Wikidata RFCs. To those people: please
give your input in this migration RFC at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_….
It has some really interesting questions, like:
A) How should we classify items like 'Ronald Reagan', 'Rabindranath
Tagore' and 'Coco Chanel'? That is, how should we classify items that have a
GND main type of "person"? A main critique of P107 is that it includes in
'person' things like gods, literary characters, spirits, and individual and
collective pseudonyms. It's clear we want greater precision than P107's
"person", but it's unclear whether it'd be best to map those claims to
instance of 'person', 'human', 'human person', or something else.
Discussion on this is in
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_….
B) How should we classify the GND main types themselves, or the classes they get mapped
to? This is essentially a question about upper ontologies [7] for Wikidata. There are
widely-used third-party upper ontologies like SUMO, UMBEL and BFO [8, 9, 10]. It's
worth discussing which of these -- if any -- is best to adopt for Wikidata's
high-level classification. Although it probably warrants a separate RFC, some initial
discussion of that is in
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_….
C) How can we visualize the type hierarchies we're creating with P31 and P279? See
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_….
The previous 'Primary sorting property' RFC was easier than this new RFC will be
-- deciding something is a bad idea is easier than actually replacing it with something
better.
So, please join the discussion at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_…!
Thanks,
Eric
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Emw[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:E…
1)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Primary_sorting…
2)
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2013-June/002451.html[http:…
3)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P107[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/P…
4)
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_type[http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#c…
5)
http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_subclassof[http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-sch…
6)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Migrating_away_…
7)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_ontology[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/…
8)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suggested_Upper_Merged_Ontology[https://en.wi…
9)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMBEL[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UMBEL]
10)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Formal_Ontology[https://en.wikipedia.or…
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l