Apologies, should this already have been discussed.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Notes/Data_model#The_Metamodel
defines: Wikipedialink = (Title, LanguageId, Badge?)
In my experience the scope or extent of entities in different
Wikipedias sometimes differs. One Wikipedia considers an entity a
valid lemma, whereas another Wikipedia subsumes it in a larger lemma.
Would changing the model to:
Wikipedialink = (Title, LanguageId, Relation, Badge?)
where relation can be
broader match
close match
exact match
narrower match
etc. help in expressing these situations? I believe this could prevent
problems later on.
The default (and initial import of interlanguage links) could easily
be "close match" - to be refined only where required.
Gregor
Hi everyone!
Next week the Wikidata team will be complete and start working at full
speed. Finally! \o/ I will be holding the first round of Wikidata
office hours next week. You're all invited to ask questions and
discuss. If you can't attend there will be logs.
* 4. April, German, in #wikimedia-wikidata on freenode, 4:30pm UTC
(see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Wikidata+Office+Ho…
for different time zones)
* 5. April, English, in #wikimedia-wikidata on freenode, 4:30pm UTC
(see http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=Wikidata+Office+Ho…
for different time zones)
I plan to offer these regularly. My (virtual) door is open outside
these office hours as well of course ;-)
Cheers
Lydia
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Eisenacher Straße 2
10777 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Hi all;
I'm thinking about notability in Wikidata and how it may conflict with
Wikipedia current policies and community conceptions. Will Wikidata allow
to create entities for small villages, asteroids, galaxies, stars, species,
etc, that are not allowed today at Wikipedia? Including about those that
don't have article in any Wikipedia?
I will be happy if so.
Regards,
emijrp
Hello Wikidata Folks,
My name is Brent Hecht, and I've done a great deal of research on the
differences and similarities between the language editions. I was really
excited to hear about the Wikidata project moving forward, and I think
some of my research might be of assistance. I'd enjoy being able to help
the community make this important transition.
In particular, my experience navigating interlanguage link conflicts
might be able to help in Phase 1. Please let me know if there's anything
I can do over the short term or long term!
Some of my relevant papers:
[1] Bao, P., Hecht, B., Carton, S., Quaderi, M., Horn, M. and Gergle, D.
2012. Omnipedia: Bridging the Wikipedia Language Gap. CHI '12: 30th
International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2012).
[2] Hecht, B. and Gergle, D. 2010. The Tower of Babel Meets Web 2.0:
User-Generated Content and Its Applications in a Multilingual Context.
CHI '10: 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems (Atlanta, GA, 2010), 291--300.
[3] Hecht, B. and Gergle, D. 2009. Measuring Self-Focus Bias in
Community-Maintained Knowledge Repositories. Communities and
Technologies 2009: 4th International Conference on Communities and
Technologies (State College, PA, 2009), 11--19.
- Brent
Brent Hecht
Ph.D. Candidate in Computer Science
CollabLab: The Collaborative Technology Laboratory
Northwestern University
w:http://www.brenthecht.com <http://www.brenthecht.com/>
e:brent@u.northwestern.edu <mailto:brent@u.northwestern.edu>
JFC Morfin wrote:
> 2. Since we have a W3C expert: what is the best document/book to get
> a comprehensive and clear (not too massive) documentation on the
> semantic web?
You surely don't want to know all about semantic web - especially the
Ontology stuff with OWL dialects and entailment regimes is far too
academic and won't be part of wikidata because of computational
complexity anyway. In short, you should be *very sceptical* and
cautious every time you stumple upon anything that requires inference
rules. Even trivial inference rules such as those based on owl:sameAs
and rdf:type can be problematic in practice! The less inference you
assume, the better.
I can recommend the "Linked Data Patterns" book by Dodds and Davis:
http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/
Jakob
--
Verbundzentrale des GBV (VZG)
Digitale Bibliothek - Jakob Voß
Platz der Goettinger Sieben 1
37073 Goettingen - Germany
+49 (0)551 39-10242
http://www.gbv.de
jakob.voss(a)gbv.de
Ivan,
Thanks for the reply. Yes as many people should be brought in about subject
indexing as can be found. The UDC is a faceted classification; LCC (Lib of
Congress Classification) and DDC (Dewey Decimal Classification) are not. UDC
is a multilingual taxonomy (facet=language) and these other two are not. To
me there's little to no competition with UDC.
But that's about what taxonomies are deployed -- I support many and all.
It's the implementing technology that's key here and happily doensn't
require expert panels and study groups. SKOS can handle multiple facets --
via its Collection objects. I view SKOS as a stepping stone to ISO Topic
Maps; I suspect SKOS has been invented by the W3 as a response to Topic Map
functionality not in OWL, but perhaps you can enlighten me further.
Basically I have these questions.
1. Is WP going to be empowered with subject indexes as a core feature? Is
this better an extension?
2. What's the relative priority of subject indexes over other wikidata
requirements (ie after Semantic Infoboxes)
3. Should SKOS or a very close equivalent be subsumed into the WOM?
The answer to 3 probably should echo the realtionship between the WOM and
the OWL, whatever that is intended to be.
Thanks,
John
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:22:43 +0200
From: Ivan Herman <ivan(a)w3.org>
To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project."
<wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Wiki Subject Indexes
Message-ID: <F67C291D-CE31-4624-AD87-7B3ABCB9B612(a)w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mar 31, 2012, at 02:00 , John McClure wrote:
> Hello,
> Can/should wiki subject indexes be a functional requirement of the
wikidata
> project, or of some other? I think navigating a wiki today without a
subject
> index is difficult, to say the least. A subject index seems such a
critical
> component for information libraries! WP's portals are a nice step but
still,
> users seem at the mercy of topical links inserted by authors of the
portal.
> How much better it would be to have a taxonomy of subjects that can be
> associated with a page by ITS author so that the page can be found
> independently of portals.
I see a major issue with the user interface of this (though I agree with
your assessment). It has to be very easy to set the right subject, otherwise
people will not do it.
The dbpedia people extract some rough classification of the articles. It is
not perfect, but may be worth looking at that, too.
> The semantics of SKOS, I suggest, should be baked in to wikis. I also
> suggest faceted UDC [1] or similar inter/national classification scheme be
> one of many that can be referenced by users when browsing any wiki. I
> envision that Subjects would be defined in a namespace as fundamental to a
> wiki as the Category namespace is. Basically, I can see requesting some
> software to correlate my own subject taxonomy with interwikis' (WP's)
> tasxonomies, so that I as a user don't have to manually search each
> interwiki for content relative to my personal list of subjects.
I think the project should reach out to libraries, ie, real experts. The
library world is currently looking at the issues of how to redefine
cataloging standards, how to make them Linked Data friendly, etc; because
that work is still in flux, it may be the ideal time to talk to them. In
view of the importance of WP, libraries cannot allow themselves to ignore
this (I believe...)
Ivan
> Is this an idea before its time, something already considered, or
something
> to consider now?
> Thanks for your thoughts. -- john
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Decimal_Classification
Ivan,
Thanks for the reply. Yes as many people should be brought in about subject
indexing as can be found. The UDC is a faceted classification; LCC (Lib of
Congress Classification) and DDC (Dewey Decimal Classification) are not. UDC
is a multilingual taxonomy (facet=language) and these other two are not. To
me there's little to no competition with UDC.
But that's about what taxonomies are deployed -- I support many and all.
It's the implementing technology that's key here and happily doensn't
require expert panels and study groups. SKOS can handle multiple facets --
via its Collection objects. I view SKOS as a stepping stone to ISO Topic
Maps; I suspect SKOS has been invented by the W3 as a response to Topic Map
functionality not in OWL, but perhaps you can enlighten me further.
Basically I have these questions.
1. Is WP going to be empowered with subject indexes as a core feature?
2. What's the relative priority of subject indexes over other wikidata
requirements (ie after Semantic Infoboxes)
3. Should SKOS or a very close equivalent be subsumed into the WOM?
The answer to 3 probably should echo the realtionship between the WOM and
the OWL, whatever that is intended to be.
Thanks,
John
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2012 11:22:43 +0200
From: Ivan Herman <ivan(a)w3.org>
To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project."
<wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Wiki Subject Indexes
Message-ID: <F67C291D-CE31-4624-AD87-7B3ABCB9B612(a)w3.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On Mar 31, 2012, at 02:00 , John McClure wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can/should wiki subject indexes be a functional requirement of the
wikidata
> project, or of some other? I think navigating a wiki today without a
subject
> index is difficult, to say the least. A subject index seems such a
critical
> component for information libraries! WP's portals are a nice step but
still,
> users seem at the mercy of topical links inserted by authors of the
portal.
> How much better it would be to have a taxonomy of subjects that can be
> associated with a page by ITS author so that the page can be found
> independently of portals.
>
I see a major issue with the user interface of this (though I agree with
your assessment). It has to be very easy to set the right subject, otherwise
people will not do it.
The dbpedia people extract some rough classification of the articles. It is
not perfect, but may be worth looking at that, too.
> The semantics of SKOS, I suggest, should be baked in to wikis. I also
> suggest faceted UDC [1] or similar inter/national classification scheme be
> one of many that can be referenced by users when browsing any wiki. I
> envision that Subjects would be defined in a namespace as fundamental to a
> wiki as the Category namespace is. Basically, I can see requesting some
> software to correlate my own subject taxonomy with interwikis' (WP's)
> tasxonomies, so that I as a user don't have to manually search each
> interwiki for content relative to my personal list of subjects.
I think the project should reach out to libraries, ie, real experts. The
library world is currently looking at the issues of how to redefine
cataloging standards, how to make them Linked Data friendly, etc; because
that work is still in flux, it may be the ideal time to talk to them. In
view of the importance of WP, libraries cannot allow themselves to ignore
this (I believe...)
Ivan
>
> Is this an idea before its time, something already considered, or
something
> to consider now?
> Thanks for your thoughts. -- john
>
> [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Decimal_Classification
Hello,
Can/should wiki subject indexes be a functional requirement of the wikidata
project, or of some other? I think navigating a wiki today without a subject
index is difficult, to say the least. A subject index seems such a critical
component for information libraries! WP's portals are a nice step but still,
users seem at the mercy of topical links inserted by authors of the portal.
How much better it would be to have a taxonomy of subjects that can be
associated with a page by ITS author so that the page can be found
independently of portals.
The semantics of SKOS, I suggest, should be baked in to wikis. I also
suggest faceted UDC [1] or similar inter/national classification scheme be
one of many that can be referenced by users when browsing any wiki. I
envision that Subjects would be defined in a namespace as fundamental to a
wiki as the Category namespace is. Basically, I can see requesting some
software to correlate my own subject taxonomy with interwikis' (WP's)
tasxonomies, so that I as a user don't have to manually search each
interwiki for content relative to my personal list of subjects.
Is this an idea before its time, something already considered, or something
to consider now?
Thanks for your thoughts. -- john
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Decimal_Classification
Just FYI: There is an interessting german article on Golem about
Wikidata:
http://www.golem.de/news/wikidata-eine-datenquelle-fuer-alle-sprachversione…
--
Yours sincerely,
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Michael Movchin (mmovchin)
Volunteer Huggle core developer, conference coordinator and Wikipedia author
Freiwilliger Huggle Core-Entwickler, Konferenzkoordinator und Wikipedia Autor