Still comparing a dataset (Wikidata) to an integration hub
I would assume that popularity of content (e.g. Wikipedia page
hits) directly relates to availability of data in Wikidata.
We have long fused all of this in a "best of" called FlexiFusion:
Agree, I am also interested in seeing this. I recently did a small comparison on science awards on coverage of laureates in both DBpedia and wikidata and came to the same conclusion. The difference sometimes was quite substantial in favour of Wikidata.
I would also be very interested in seeing this. I had a closer look at
DBpedia recently for a tutorial and was surprised by how different the
data is in comparison to Wikidata. A methodological comparison would
surely be helpful.
Of course, it has to be fair, taking into account that DBpedia editions
are based on a Wikipedia in one language (hence is always missing
entities that Wikidata has). For example, I recently computed the
difference between the following two:
(1) The set of all pairs of ancestors that one can find by following
(paths of) parent relations on EN DBPedia.
(2) The set of all pairs of ancestors that one can find by following
(paths of) mother/father relations on Wikidata, but visiting only items
that are present in English Wikipedia.
I am not sure if this is fair or not, but I found it an interesting
setup (non-local effects of incompleteness) -- and (2) is a nice
illustration of something you cannot achieve in SPARQL on principled
Wikidata mailing list
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata