Dimitris Kontokostas> we made some different design choices and map wikidata data
directly into the DBpedia ontology.
I’m very interested in this.
A simple example: bgwiki started keeping Place Hierarchy in Wikidata because it’s much
less efficient to keep it in deeply nested subtemplates.
This made it very hard for bgdbpedia to extract this info, because how do you mix e.g.
dbo:partOf and wd:Pnnn?
So this is a logical continuation of the first step, which was for DBpedia to source
inter-language links (owl:sameAs) from WD.
(I haven’t tracked the list in a while, could someone give me a link to such dump? Sorry)
Tom Morris> abandoned critical thinking and assumed DBpedia was dead now that we had
WikiData
That’s quite false. Both have their strengths and weaknesses.
- DBpedia has much more info than Wikidata. For Chrissake, Wikidata doesn’t even have
category>article assignments!
- Wikidata has more entities (true, "stubs"),
a lot of them created for coreferencing (authority control) purposes.
IMHO there’s a bit of a revolution in this domain, check out
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Authority_control
https://twitter.com/hashtag/coreferencing
https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/
VIAF is moving to Wikidata coreferencing, which will get them double the name forms,
300k orgs and 700k persons.
This is Big Deal to any library of museum hack.
- Wikidata has easier access to labels. In DBpedia you have to do a wikiPageRedirects
dance,
and if you’re naïve you’ll assume “God Does Not Play Dice” is another name for Einstein
- Right now IMHO Wikidata has better direct types for persons. This is a shame and we need
to fix it in DBpedia
without thinking about how the two could evolve /
compete / cooperate / thrive.
We exactly have to think about this.
Last few months I've been worrying that the two communities don't much talk to
each other.
We as humanity should leverage the strengths of both, to gain maximum benefits.
I've become active in both communities, and I feel no shame in such split loyalies.
:-)
I went to DBpedia Dublin, now'll go to GlamWiki Hague...
It's structured data each way!
Some little incoherencies:
- The DBpedia Extraction framework is a very ingenious thing, and the devs working on it
are very smart.
But can they compete with a thousand Wikidata bot writers? (plus Magnus who in my mind
holds semi-God status)
- Meanwhile, DBpedia can't muster a willing Wikipedia hack to service
mappings.dbpedia.org, which is stuck in the stone age.
- Wikidatians move around tons of data every day, but their understanding of RDF *as a
community* is still a bit naïve.
- DBpedia holds tons of structured data, but Wikidata seems to plan to source it by
individual bot contributions... maybe in full in 5 years time?
- DBpedia has grokked the black magic of dealing with hand-written *multilingual* units
and conversions.
Of a gazillion units
http://mappings.dbpedia.org/index.php/DBpedia_Datatypes
Last I looked, Wikidata folks shrugged this off with "too different from our data
types"
-
https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/ is a crowdsourcing Wonder upon God's Earth,
but nary a DBpedian has heard of it IMHO
A Little Cooperation Goes a Long Way.
Cheers!