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(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)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
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
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)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
>
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.