::thumbs up:: Awesome, that's great to hear the coordination with Guhu as
I thought it might be the case. So thanks for the response and
acknowledgement. Yes, agree the rendering is the core of Abstract
Wikipedia and btw, loved your video talk with Shani Evenstein here:
And a final question. As a corollary to noun phrases, I had an idiom
question that surfaced questions in the Lexeme variant system currently in
Wikidata and that I desperately need some clarity on:
Jura's response left me still wondering how best to handle variants as I
explained in the "eye to eye" versus "eye-to-eye" so would really
appreciate your response in that Lexeme question thread. I really think
it's just a documentation issue, but as you will read, maybe I am wrong on
some assumptions. Let me know if I need to clarify anything in it, or if
we need to hop on a call together to quickly discuss at any time to get
clarity. After getting clarity, I will be happy to improve our docs for
Lexemes in the places where it is needed.
On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 5:15 PM Denny Vrandečić <dvrandecic(a)wikimedia.org>
Yes, I have been discussing this very notion with Guha
quite a bit, and
even though we have a certain disagreement on certain details, we agreed on
the overall framework. I completely agree with you that the wiki of
functions will likely become a major puzzle piece on this issue.
Roughly, my assumption is that noun phrases and references by description
are more or less the same thing for certain purposes, and that some of the
constructors we will be creating for Abstract Wikipedia will be able to
serve a double function of providing not only building blocks for the
natural language generation part, but also can be mapped to a formal model
that can propagate identity, and that has the additional advantage that it
can be rendered in different natural languages (that's stronger than what
Guha is suggesting, but should cover his use cases as well).
Or, put differently, we will be able to capture identity by description
because descriptions such as "Andrew McCallum's right foot" are
in our system, and can be handed around and reasoned over, either within
the wiki of functions or within a wider framework, and there will be a
sufficiently shared understanding of the content of these descriptions.
grounded in the same shared understanding we will need to achieve for the
Abstract Wikipedia goal anyway.
So, yes, I totally agree with your observation, and I think that will be a
rather neat additional result of our work.
On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 2:31 PM Thad Guidry <thadguidry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I think that Abstract Wikipedia and more
explicitly WikiLambda functions
could be used for generating "References by Description" and later, help
understanding them and reconciling them.
One of the long term goals of Data Commons https://datacommons.org/faq
is to help resolve ambiguous entities by using "Reference by Description".
Denny, are you familiar with Guha's paper?
‘John McCarthy, Pioneer in Artificial Intelligence...’ the term ‘John
McCarthy’ alone is ambiguous. It could refer to a
computer scientist, a
politician or even a novel or film. In order to disambiguate the reference,
the head-line includes the description “Pioneer in Artificial
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list