Well, let's see, Denny...
I predict that omitting the name of the person I'm replying to will have
the effect you desire. (How logical is that?)
Fingers crossed! (...sorry, everyone)
Al.
On Wednesday, 29 July 2020, <abstract-wikipedia-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
Send Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list submissions to
abstract-wikipedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
abstract-wikipedia-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
abstract-wikipedia-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Abstract-Wikipedia digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Two different kinds of information? (Andy) (Denny Vrandečić)
2. How to store wikitext along the structured content?
(Denny Vrandečić)
3. Re: Two different kinds of information? (Denny Vrandečić)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 13:57:52 -0700
From: Denny Vrandečić <dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org>
To: "General public mailing list for the discussion of Abstract
Wikipedia (aka Wikilambda)" <abstract-wikipedia@lists.
wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Abstract-wikipedia] Two different kinds of information?
(Andy)
Message-ID:
<CA+bik1eS56HuAqtd6O-4OS-kexUzfvu0u4hsYfXtxc83Fms42w@
mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi Al,
just one quick request - can you set up your answers to the mailing list in
such a way that it doesn't break the thread? (I am not sure how, maybe
someone else can chime in, but right now, your answers start a new thread
instead of continuing the previous one).
Louis Lecaillez had a similar issue initially, but managed to resolve it,
for which I am thankful.
If not, it is OK, but I thought I'd ask.
Thank you!
Denny
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020 at 8:23 AM Grounder UK <grounderuk(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hi, Andy! Welcome!
I do like your idea of being clear about basic "facts" and details. I
think it will be key in the selection of "statements" that go into an
"article", in whatever language is required. I don't think we can say how
many levels of information there might be, but we can already see
something
from how Wikipedia pages are put into
categories.
"France is a country in Europe" and "in western Europe" and "in
the
European Union", just to mention three categories. The first is an
important fact of geography, but is the second more helpful? All
countries
in western Europe are (1) a country and (2) in
Europe and (3) to the
west.
(3) feels more like a detail, but if we tell you
France is in Europe,
what
is the first question you might ask? It might be,
"Is it in the European
Union?" or "How big is it?" or "Do many people live there?" So I
would
expect us to give you those facts or details (FAQs) as well.
Facts about facts and statements about claims are a whole other topic,
but
if a "fact" is disputed, we do need to
know how to show this. If you look
at Wikidata, you will see that the United Kingdom has been a sovereign
state since 1927. This is untrue. But if 1927 is not the answer to the
question "How long has the UK been a country (or sovereign state)?", what
is? "Since 1707, 1801 or 1922", depending on the details. Luckily for
you,
France has "always" been a country,
despite now being the fifth republic
(since 1958).
So, sometimes the Property of an entity is not a simple value or
relationship. It might be better to think about it as a relationship to a
"disagreement" or debate. Then, a "fact" is an entity's
relationship to
an
absence of "disagreement", a
"consensus", as Wikipedia would call it.
Part
of this consensus is the meaning of an
entity's label. For example,
English
Wikipedia thinks "oxygen" is the
chemical element ("O") and "its most
stable form" ("O<sub>2</sub>", "dioxygen"). French
Wikipedia thinks
"oxygène" is just the element. Wikidata has statements (mostly) about the
element but the "Identifiers" (external authorities) are for the English
Wikipedia concept, not the French one. The point is, it is clear that
there
might be some confusion! We have a separate item
for dioxygen and for
ozone
and (in theory) for atomic oxygen (and there are
others) so we can give
you
all of the oxygen facts, mostly grouped by form
(allotrope and/or state).
Think of that as a disambiguation page enriched with detail... It's an
interesting use case (or test case), I think.
Best regards,
Al.
On Tuesday, 28 July 2020, <abstract-wikipedia-request@
lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Send Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list submissions to
> abstract-wikipedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> abstract-wikipedia-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> abstract-wikipedia-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Abstract-Wikipedia digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. All work is preliminary (Denny Vrandečić)
> 2. Two different kinds of information? (Andy)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 27 Jul 2020 12:43:05 -0700
> From: Denny Vrandečić <dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org>
> To: Abstract Wikipedia list <abstract-wikipedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Subject: [Abstract-wikipedia] All work is preliminary
> Message-ID:
> <CA+bik1dNtpbA3H2_O=
> 8H8iyNrBPMbpQeAaOb04EpEaoLxCWSZQ(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hello all,
>
> one of the things we have been discussing in the team is that we want to
> do
> as much of our work in the open. At the same time, we're a distributed
> team
> and starting to form a shared understanding of the task at hand. Due to
> the
> COVID situation, we didn't have the opportunity to have a project kick
> off,
> where we meet for a few days and make sure that we are fully aligned and
> use the same words and have the same thinking.
>
> That's both an opportunity, but also a risk, as it might lead to
> divergence
> in what we are saying and writing.
>
> We have two possible ways forward - either we vet documents and
> discussions
> internally every time, in order to present a more unified view on the
> project, or we just drop that and we publish our documents and plans in
> the
> open immediately, with the understanding that this is merely
preliminary,
> that there might be inconsistencies. We might
discuss and disagree with
> each other publicly in Phabricator tasks and on this mailing list and on
> the wiki pages - but in the end, this is also an opportunity to together
> with you build a common understanding and share the process of
developing
> the project vision and implementation.
>
> So, in that light, we still have a small backlog of internal documents
> that
> we want to get out, and by the end of this week, most of the state of
the
> work should be in the open, and we will move
more and more of our
> discussions to the public, to eventually have them all in the open.
>
> Here is a document I have been working on for a while, it is the core
> model
> of how the evaluation and representation of data, functions, and
function
> calls in Wikilambda may work. Again, there is
no agreement on this yet.
It
> differs from the AbstractText prototype
implementation, and there is a
> list
> of main differences at the end, and it also has not all the answers yet.
>
> Thanks to, particularly Arthur P. Smith for many comments and rewriting
of
>> some of the sections, thanks to Lucas Werkmeister for his valuable input
>> (and, even more important, for his work on GraalEneyj), thanks to Cyrus
>> Omar for his advice and pointers, and thanks to Adam Baso, James
>> Forrester,
>> and Nick Wilson for their internal comments.
>>
>>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Abstract_Wikipedia/Function_model
>>
>> Feedback on this would be extremely valuable, and you can see there are
>> many open questions left.
>>
>> Stay safe,
>> Denny
>>