Hi Denny,

here are some initial points:

1. there is also the generic dataset from last month: https://databus.dbpedia.org/dbpedia/generic/infobox-properties/2019.08.30 dataset (We still need to copy the docu on the bus). This has the highest coverage, but lowest consistency. English has around 50k parent properties maybe more if you count child inverse and other variants. We would need to check the mappings at http://mappings.dbpedia.org , which we are doing at the moment anyhow. It could take only an hour to map some healthy chunks into the mappings dataset.

curl https://downloads.dbpedia.org/repo/lts/generic/infobox-properties/2019.08.30/infobox-properties_lang=en.ttl.bz2 | bzcat | grep "/parent"


Normally this dataset is messy, but still quite useful, because you can write the queries with alternatives (see dbo:position|dbp:position) in a way that make them useable, like this query that works since 13 years:

soccer players, who are born in a country with more than 10 million inhabitants, who played as goalkeeper for a club that has a stadium with more than 30.000 seats and the club country is different from the birth country
Maybe, we could also evaluate some queries which can be answered by one or the other? Can you do the query above in Wikidata?

2. We also have an API to get all references from infoboxes now as a partial result of the GFS project . See point 5 here : https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/DBpedia/GlobalFactSyncRE

3. This particular dataset (generic/infobox-properties) above is also a good measure of non-adoption of Wikidata in Wikipedia. In total, it has over 500 million statements for all languages. Having a statement here means, that the data is using an infobox template parameter and no wikidata is used. The dataset is still extracted in the same way. We can check whether it got bigger or smaller. It is the same algorithm. But the fact that this still works and has a decent size indicates that Wikidata adoption by Wikipedians is low.

4. I need to look at the parent example in detail. However, I have to say that the property lends itself well for the Wikidata approach since it is easily understood and has sort of a truthiness and is easy to research and add.

I am not sure if it is representative as e.g. "employer" is more difficult to model (time scoped). Like my data here is outdated: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q39429171

Also I don't see yet how this will become a more systematic approach that shows where to optimize, but I still need to read it fully.

We can start with this one however.

-- Sebastian

On 01.10.19 01:13, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Hi all,

as promised, now that I am back from my trip, here's my draft of the comparison of Wikidata, DBpedia, and Freebase.

It is a draft, it is obviously potentially biased given my background, etc., but I hope that we can work on it together to get it into a good shape.

Markus, amusingly I took pretty much the same example that you went for, the parent predicate. So yes, I was also surprised by the results, and would love to have Sebastian or Kingsley look into it and see if I conducted it fairly.

SJ, Andra, thanks for offering to take a look. I am sure you all can contribute your own unique background and make suggestions on how to improve things and whether the results ring true.

Marco, I totally agree with what you said - the project has stalled, and there is plenty of opportunity to harvest more data from Freebase and bring it to Wikidata, and this should be reignited. Sebastian, I also agree with you, and the numbers do so too, the same is true with the extraction results from DBpedia.

Sebastian, Kingsley, I tried to describe how I understand DBpedia, and all steps should be reproducible. As it seems that the two of you also have to discuss one or the other thing about DBpedia's identity, I am relieved that my confusion is not entirely unjustified. So I tried to use both the last stable DBpedia release as well as a new-style DBpedia fusion dataset for the comparison. But I might have gotten the whole procedure wrong. I am happy to be corrected.

On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:28 AM <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
> Meanwhile, Google crawls all the references and extracts facts from there. We don't
> have that available, but there is Linked Open Data. 

Potentially, not a bad idea, but we don't do that.

Everyone, this is the first time I share a Colab notebook, and I have no idea if I did it right. So any feedback of the form "oh you didn't switch on that bit over here" or "yes, this works, thank you" is very welcome, because I have no clue what I am doing :) Also, I never did this kind of analysis so transparently, which is kinda both totally cool and rather scary, because now you can all see how dumb I am :)

So everyone is invited to send Pull Requests (I guess that's how this works?), and I would love for us to create a result together that we agree on. I see the result of this exercise to be potentially twofold:

1) a publication we can point people to who ask about the differences between Wikidata, DBpedia, and Freebase

2) to reignite or start projects and processes to reduce these differences

So, here is the link to my Colab notebook:


Ideally, the third goal could be to get to a deeper understanding of how these three projects relate to each other - in my point of view, Freebase is dead and outdated, Wikidata is the core knowledge base that anyone can edit, and DBpedia is the core project to weave value-adding workflows on top of Wikidata or other datasets from the linked open data cloud together. But that's just a proposal.


On Sat, Sep 28, 2019 at 12:28 AM <hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote:
Hi Gerard,

I was not trying to judge here. I was just saying that it wasn't much data in the end.
For me Freebase was basically cherry-picked.

Meanwhile, the data we extract is more pertinent to the goal of having Wikidata cover the info boxes. We still have ~ 500 million statements left. But none of it is used yet. Hopefully we can change that.

Meanwhile, Google crawls all the references and extracts facts from there. We don't have that available, but there is Linked Open Data.


On September 27, 2019 5:26:43 PM GMT+02:00, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
I totally reject the assertion was so bad. I have always had the opinion that the main issue was an atrocious user interface. Add to this the people that have Wikipedia notions about quality. They have and had a detrimental effect on both the quantity and quality of Wikidata. 

When you add the functionality that is being build by the datawranglers at DBpedia, it becomes easy/easier to compare the data from Wikipedias with Wikidata (and why not Freebase) add what has consensus and curate the differences. This will enable a true datasense of quality and allows us to provide a much improved service.

On Fri, 27 Sep 2019 at 15:54, Marco Fossati <fossati@spaziodati.eu> wrote:
Hey Sebastian,

On 9/20/19 10:22 AM, Sebastian Hellmann wrote:
> Not much of Freebase did end up in Wikidata.

Dropping here some pointers to shed light on the migration of Freebase
to Wikidata, since I was partially involved in the process:
1. WikiProject [1];
2. the paper behind [2];
3. datasets to be migrated [3].

I can confirm that the migration has stalled: as of today, *528
thousands* Freebase statements were curated by the community, out of *10
million* ones. By 'curated', I mean approved or rejected.
These numbers come from two queries against the primary sources tool

The stall is due to several causes: in my opinion, the most important
one was the bad quality of sources [4,5] coming from the Knowledge Vault
project [6].



[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Freebase
[6] https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~murphyk/Papers/kv-kdd14.pdf

Wikidata mailing list

Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Wikidata mailing list

Wikidata mailing list
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
Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann
Research Group: http://aksw.org