On 22/09/2019 08:48, Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
The formula here is quite easy: If you look at DBpedia's data in detail
or a part of it, it will not shine so much since it is extracted,
Sure, but I think that this is not clear to many people who are
currently using DBpedia as a dataset (even if only for testing/research
purposes). Also, there would surely be value in analysing the
differences more closely. I agree with you that quantitatively, Wikidata
might be orders of magnitudes ahead. Yet, there can still be individual
bits of information that are in DBpedia but missing from Wikidata so far.
For example, DBpedia EN has 32 people educated at the University of
Leipzig, whereas Wikidata has 1217. Nevertheless, there is, for example,
John Henry Wright (Q6238997), who is known to DBpedia but not to
Wikidata (yet). Such cases might be worth systematic weeding out so that
we can really come to the point where Wikidata is a strict superset of
all (correct) data in DBpedia.