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
Hello,
I am interested in contributing time to the Wikidata project. I'm CTO for a
consulting company in Ohio (USA), and come from a custom application
development background. I have a strong background in web applications and
relational databases, and have been recently working with non-relational
databases, mobile applications and distributed data tools (ie Hadoop).
I am relatively new to the semantic web area, but would like to find a way
to help with the project. It would seem logical to try to help with coding
and / or documentation type tasks, but I'm open to suggestions. I read
through the the project info and FAQs. Per
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/FAQ#How_can_I_get_involved.3F, I'm
asking how I can help.
-Tim Hoolihan
Twitter: thoolihan
Freenode: thoolihan
Hi all,
now, that the project starts (HURRA!!) I think that more postings will
be expected soon.
Any chance to add this mailinglist to Gmane?
Thanks a lot. Best regards
Raimond.
--
Raimond Spekking, Köln
GPG-Schlüssel-ID: 0xB12BE7A6
Hilf mit, dass WIKIPEDIA von der UNESCO als erstes digitales Weltkulturerbe anerkannt wird. Unterzeichne die Online-Petition: https://wke.wikimedia.de/wke/Main_Page?uselang=de
On Mar 28, 2012, at 19:33 , JFC Morfin wrote:
> At 18:10 28/03/2012, Ivan Herman wrote:
>> Obviously, you all expect me to agree with Martynas, in view of my job, and I do:-). But I do not only because I work for W3C, but I indeed genuinely believe that reinventing things here may be way too costly on long term...
>>
>> Note also that W3C may start a new group later this year that would look at a 'lower' level HTTP protocol to manage (read and write) RDF data without necessarily using SPARQL. This may be useful for the project as well.
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> On Mar 28, 2012, at 18:02 , Martynas Jusevicius wrote:
>>
>> > Hey all,
>> >
>> > I've been reading some of the technical notes on Wikidata, for example
>> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Notes/Data_model
>> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nikola_Smolenski/Wikidata#Query_language
>
> I would suggest that at this stage we need to have a comprehensive understanding of all the possible options.
>
> 1.Has someone published as page listing the best *summary* documenting and argumenting each of the existing options. I suppose we will want a table indicating which existing solution answers which listed need?
>
> 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?
>
The one which is probably closest to what WikiData would need is "Linked Data: Evolving the Web into a Global Data Space", by Tom Heath and Christian Bizer.
It is actually readable in HTML freely:
http://linkeddatabook.com/editions/1.0/
For a more complete list of books, see also
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/wiki/Books
> 3. What are the relations with the JTC1/SC32/WG2? Is investing time in their documents appropriate?
Honestly, I do not know. The JTC1/SC32 has no link to WG2, and none of their documents are public:-(
Ivan
>
> Thank you!
> jfc
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Hi all,
Wikimedia Germany is sending out a press release about Wikidata today. The
press release sums up the information that has been published on Meta since
last Wikimania, where it has been first presented, and discussed and
refined since then, including information about the donation that is making
Wikidata possible.
<http://www.wikimedia.de/wiki/Pressemitteilungen/PM_3_12_Wikidata_EN>
We are very excited about the Wikidata development team starting on Monday.
This also means, that in the future we will be communicating about Wikidata
much more, as the development is finally starting. Yay!
I want to take this opportunity to thank the donors of Wikidata, the Allen
Institute of Artificial Intelligence ai2, the Gordon and Betty Moore
Foundation, and Google for the generous support, that enables us to work on
the Wikidata project for the next year.
Exciting times are waiting for us, Cheers all,
Denny
--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Eisenacher Straße 2 | 10777 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Hey all,
I've been reading some of the technical notes on Wikidata, for example
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Notes/Data_modelhttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Nikola_Smolenski/Wikidata#Query_language
Statements like "[data model] similar to RDF, but allows qualified
property values" and "should there be a query language that will
enable querying of the data?" concern me a great deal regarding the
future of the whole Wikidata project.
It seems to me that whoever is making these technical decisions does
not fully realize the price of reinventing the bike -- or in this
situation, reinventing data models/formats/standards. Having designed
and implemented production-grade applications both on RDBMSs, XML, and
RDF, I strogly suggest you should base Wikidata on standard RDF.
I know some/most of you are coming from the wiki background which
might be hard to get over with, but if Wikidata is to become a free
and open knowledge base on the (Semantic) Web, then RDF is the free
and open industry standard for that. Whatever little advantage you
would get from developing a custom non-standard data model, think how
many man-years of standardization and tool development you would
loose. Isn't knowledge about standing on the shoulders of giants? RDF
has all the specifications, a variety of tools, and DBPedia as a very
solid proof-of-concept (which I also think should be better integrated
with this project) necessary to build Wikidata.
With SPARQL Update, full read/write RDF roundtrip is possible (and
works in practice). It also makes the notion of API rather obsolete,
since SPARQL Update (and related mechanisms) is the only generic
API-method one has to deal with.
To round up -- I think failure to realize the potential of RDF for
Wikidata would be a huge waste of resources for this project,
Wikipedia, and the general public.
Martynas
graphity.org