Just an ominous note here. It has to do with th property of the semantic web of only having one schema and several id's for same things and then it is just a matter of how to partition it again and distribute it to where people need the information and establishing feedback in the opposite direction. Basically an implemented variation of what Kingsley has been saying for years.
Waiting for your message.
LG, Sebastian
On September 20, 2019 7:31:36 PM GMT+02:00, "Denny Vrandečić" vrandecic@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, you're touching exactly on the problems I had during the evaluation - I couldn't even figure out what DBpedia is. Thanks, your help will be very much appreciated.
OK, I will send a link the week after the next, and then we can start working on it :) I am very much looking forward to it.
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:11 AM Sebastian Hellmann < hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
Na, I am quite open, albeit impulsive. The information given was
quite
good and some of my concerns regarding the involvement of Google were
also
lifted or relativized. Mainly due to the fact that there seems to be
a
sense of awareness.
I am just studying economic principles, which are very powerful. I
also
have the feeling that free and open stuff just got a lot more
commercial
and I am still struggling with myself whether this is good or not.
Also
whether DBpedia should become frenemies with BigTech. Or funny things
like
many funding agencies try to push for national sustainability
options, but
most of the time, they suggest to use the GitHub Platform. Wikibase
could
be an option here.
I have to apologize for the Knowledge Graph Talk thing. I was a bit grumpy, because I thought I wasted a lot of time on the Talk page
that
could have been invested in making the article better (WP:BE_BOLD
style),
but now I think, it might have been my own mistake. So apologies for lashing out there.
(see comments below) On 20.09.19 17:53, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Sebastian,
"I don't want to facilitate conspiracy theories, but ..." "[I am] interested in what is the truth behind the truth"
I am sorry, I truly am, but this *is* the language I know from
conspiracy
theorists. And given that, I cannot imagine that there is anything I
can
say that could convince you otherwise. Therefore there is no real
point for
me in engaging with this conversation on these terms, I cannot see
how it
would turn constructive.
The answers to many of your questions are public and on the record.
Others
tried to point you to them (thanks), but you dismiss them as not
fitting
your narrative.
So here's a suggestion, which I think might be much more constructive
and
forward-looking:
I have been working on a comparison of DBpedia, Wikidata, and
Freebase
(and since you've read my thesis, you know that's a thing I know a
bit
about). Simple evaluation, coverage, correctness, nothing
dramatically
fancy. But I am torn about publishing it, because, d'oh, people may
(with
good reasons) dismiss it as being biased. And truth be told - the
simple
fact that I don't know DBpedia as well as I know Wikidata and
Freebase
might indeed have lead to errors, mistakes, and stuff I missed in the evaluation. But you know what would help?
You.
My suggestion is that I publish my current draft, and then you and me
work
together on it, publically, in the open, until we reach a state we
both
consider correct enough for publication.
What do you think?
Sure, we are doing statistics at the moment as well. It is a bit hard
to
define what DBpedia is nowadays as we are rebranding the remixed
datasets,
now that we can pick up links and other data from the Databus. It
might not
even be a real dataset anymore, but glue between datasets focusing on
the
speed of integration and ease of quality improvement. Also still
working on
the concrete Sync Targets for GlobalFactSync (
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/DBpedia/GlobalFactSyncRE)
as well.
One question I have is whether Wikidata is effective/efficient or
where it
is effective and where it could use improvement as a chance for collaboration.
So yes any time.
-- Sebastian
Cheers, Denny
P.S.: I am travelling the next week, so I may ask for patience
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:11 AM Thad Guidry thadguidry@gmail.com
wrote:
Thank you for sharing your opinions, Sebastian.
Cheers, Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Sebastian Hellmann < hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
Hi Thad, On 20.09.19 15:28, Thad Guidry wrote:
With my tech evangelist hat on...
Google's philanthropy is nearly boundless when it comes to the
promotion
of knowledge. Why? Because indeed it's in their best interest
otherwise no
one can prosper without knowledge. They aggregate knowledge for
the
benefit of mankind, and then make a profit through advertising ...
all
while making that knowledge extremely easy to be found for the
world.
I am neither pro-Google or anti-Google per se. Maybe skeptical and interested in what is the truth behind the truth. Google is not
synonym to
philanthropy. Wikimedia is or at least I think they are doing many
things
right. Google is a platform, so primarily they "aggregate knowledge
for
their benefit" while creating enough incentives in form of
accessibility
for users to add the user's knowledge to theirs. It is not about
what
Google offers, but what it takes in return. 20% of employees time
is also
an investment in the skill of the employee, a Google asset called
Human
Capital and also leads to me and Denny from Google discussing
whether
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Graph is content
marketing
or knowledge (@Denny: no offense, legit arguments, but no agenda to
resolve
the stalled discussion there). Except I don't have 20% time to
straighten
the view into what I believe would be neutral, so pushing it
becomes a
resource issue.
I found the other replies much more realistic and the perspective
is yet
unclear. Maybe Mozilla wasn't so much frenemy with Google and got
removed
from the browser market for it. I am also thinking about Linked
Open Data.
Decentralisation is quite weak, individually. I guess spreading all
the
Wikibases around to super-nodes is helpful unless it prevents the
formation
of a stronger lobby of philanthropists or competition to BigTech.
Wikidata
created some pressure on DBpedia as well (also opportunities), but
we are
fine since we can simply innovate. Others might not withstand.
Microsoft
seems to favor OpenStreetMaps so I am just asking to which degree
Open
Source and Open Data is being instrumentalised by BigTech.
Hence my question, whether it is compromise or be removed. (Note
that
states are also platforms, which measure value in GDP and make laws
and
roads and take VAT on transactions. Sometimes, they even don't
remove
opposition.)
-- All the best, Sebastian Hellmann
Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies
(KILT)
Competence Center at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig
University
Executive Director of the DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://nlp2rdf.org, http://linguistics.okfn.org, https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann Research Group: http://aksw.org
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- All the best, Sebastian Hellmann
Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies (KILT) Competence Center at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig
University
Executive Director of the DBpedia Association Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://nlp2rdf.org, http://linguistics.okfn.org, https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann Research Group: http://aksw.org