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@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@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
abstract-wikipedia-owner@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@wikimedia.org>
To: Abstract Wikipedia list <abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Abstract-wikipedia] All work is preliminary
Message-ID:
<CA+bik1dNtpbA3H2_O=8H8iyNrBPMbpQeAaOb04EpEaoLxCWSZQ@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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/abstract-wikipedia/attachments/20200727/d1111f1b/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2020 11:46:05 +0200
From: Andy <borucki.andrzej@gmail.com>
To: abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Abstract-wikipedia] Two different kinds of information?
Message-ID:
<CAE2KeAJrFbUKfk+=hT=WX7m1OW=vOX+z9Cqo0-8DaLOPYupXzw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Hi, I am new in this abstract-wikipedia mail list.
If should be two layers of information?
First: net of facts, like
France (Q142) is a country (Q6256).
<Q142> <rel_is> <Q6256> .
and all detailed facts which should be understanded by computer.
Second. usual human-readable sentences like Wikipedia, except they will
language-independent like UNL?
Or combine this two approaches?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/abstract-wikipedia/attachments/20200728/382e0040/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Subject: Digest Footer
_______________________________________________
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list
Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
------------------------------
End of Abstract-Wikipedia Digest, Vol 1, Issue 94
*************************************************
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list
Abstract-Wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia