Oops, I meant https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Classification of course. We made the page translatable even if it's not an accepted policy, at least it's well founded and solid.
2015-10-17 17:06 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, So in order to understand all this and participate it is necessary to submit to the FRENCH Wikipedia.. Why not Thai ?
The mind boggles Thanks, GerardM
On 17 October 2015 at 16:42, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
You're right, I tend to think having a metaclass for types of deaseases would be useful, really.
Please submit your suggestions and correction on https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Help%3AClassification&title=... :) There is an opened RfC on adopting such basic classification basic principles things as an help page : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Adopt_Help:Class...
2015-10-17 16:25 GMT+02:00 Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com>:
On 10/17/2015 12:55 AM, Thomas Douillard wrote:
I was a bit surprised to see class reasoning used on diseases.
I was not aware of that, do you have links ?
See slide 38 of http://www.slideshare.net/_Emw/an-ambitious-wikidata-tutorial
I was a bit surprised to see class reasoning used on diseases. This depends on a particular modelling methodology.
It's not surprising as the meaning of properties is community defined
(or sub
community defined) so any community can use reasoning technology they
want to
use as which is consistent with the intended meaning of properties. As Wikidata do only stores statements anyone can use reasoning
technologies on
top of this that are community accepted. The drawback of this approach
have
been discussed on another thread some days ago : it could become
tricky to
understand for a simple user the path that lead to a statement
addition and we
have to be careful to always provide informations on which bot added
inferred
statements with that reasoning technology or rule from which data.
What is the community-defined meaning of subclass of and diseases then?
Here is what I see in Wikidata.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q128581 breast cancer has a https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P279 subclass of link to both https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12136 disease and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18556617 thoracic cancer
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P279 subclass of is linked via https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 equivalent property to http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf which is the subclass relationship between classes.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P279 subclass of has English description all of these items are instances of those items; this item is a class of that item. Not to be confused with Property:P31 (instance of). which is rather confusing, but appears to be gloss of the RDFS meaning of http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf
Someone looking at all this is thus lead to believe that https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P279 subclass of is the same as the RDFS meaning of http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf
So diseases are classes. They then have instances. They can be reasoned with using techniques borrowed from RDFS.
This is a particular modelling methodology. It has its benefits. It requires a certain view of disease and diseases. The particular instantiation of this modelling methodology, where there is a redundant link to the top of the disease hierarchy and that top loops back to itself, has its own benefits and drawbacks.
A bigger problem than the one you state, I think, is how outsiders can determine that this modelling methodology is in place and understand it adequately to effectively use the information or to contribute more information. There is nothing on the discussion pages for the various diseases that I looked at.
The modelling methodology used here is useful in many other places, including human occupations, creative work genres, cuisines, and sports. Is Wikidata uniform in applying this methodology? If this is not the case, then how is the use of this methodology signalled?
I however noticed in heated recent debates that some users on frwiki
were
sensible to the argument that Wikidata only does store statements.
This kind
of users feared that Wikidata would induce an alignment of semantics
of words
and items to the enwiki semantic, They believes in the linguistic
hypothesis
that words in a language carry some kind of language dependant meaning
on
their own and feared some kind of "cultural contagion" by some kind of mechanism where the specific meaning of english word would contaminate
the
french word. It has of course been said many time that Wikidata was not focused on words and linguistic but on definitions mainly, and that one definition equals one item, that wikidata was the sum of all
knowledge, but
the argument that finally seemed to be effective was the one that
Wikidata do
only store statements and do not einforce constraint. It seems to be
effective
to convince them that Wikidata is indeed POV agnostic.
In my discussion above, I tried to stay away from using the human-language descriptions, preferring an external formal definition. Unfortunately, Wikidata does not have an internal formal definition beyond the simple description of the data structures. This lack, I think, is what makes the human-language descriptions so important in Wikidata. My view is that a stronger formal basis for Wikidata would help to reduce the possibility that descriptions in dominant human languages do indeed push out the other descriptions.
2015-10-16 19:14 GMT+02:00 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschneider@gmail.com
mailto:pfpschneider@gmail.com>:
It's very pleasant to hear from someone else who thinks ofWikidata as a
knowledge base (or at least hopes that Wikidata can be consideredas a
knowledge base). Did you get any pushback on this or on yourstated Wikidata
goal of structuring the sum of all human knowledge? Did you get any pushback on your section on classification inWikidata? It
seems to me that some of that is rather controversial in theWikidata
community. I was a bit surprised to see class reasoning used ondiseases.
This depends on a particular modelling methodology. peter On 10/12/2015 11:47 AM, Emw wrote: > Hi all, > > On Saturday, I facilitated a workshop at the U.S. NationalArchives entitled
> "An Ambitious Wikidata Tutorial" as part of WikiConference USA
> > Slides are available at: > http://www.slideshare.net/_Emw/an-ambitious-wikidata-tutorial >https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_Ambitious_Wikidata_Tutorial.pdf
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata