Hi Phillip,
Are you aware of the Wikidata RDF exports at http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/ ? Do they meet your requirements for now or do you need something different? If you have specific plans for the RDF, I would be curious to learn about them.
Cheers,
Markus
On 29.10.2014 19:41, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
FWIW, put me in the camp of "people who want to see wikidata available via RDF" as well. I won't argue that RDF needs to be the *native* format for Wikidata, but I think it would be a crying shame for such a large knowledgebase to be cut off from seamless integration with the rest of the LinkedData world.
That said, I don't really care if RDF/SPARQL support come later and are treated as an "add on", but I do think Wikidata should at least have that as a goal for "eventually". And if I can help make that happen, I'll try to pitch in however I can. I have some experiments I'm doing now, working on some new approaches to scaling RDF triplestores, so using the Wikidata data may be an interesting testbed for that down the road.
And on a related note - and apologies if this has been discussed to death, but I haven't been on the list since the beginning - but I am curious if there is any formal collaboration (in-place|proposed|possible) between dbpedia and wikidata?
Phil
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
Martynas,
Denny is right. You could set up a Virtuoso endpoint based on our RDF exports. This would be quite nice to have. That's one important reason why we created the exports, and I really hope we will soon see this happening. We are dealing here with a very large project, and the decision for or against a technology is not just a matter of our personal preference. If RDF can demonstrate added value, then there will surely be resources to further extend the support for it. So far, we are in the lead: we provide close to one billion (!) triples Wikidata knowledge to the world. So far, there is no known use of this data. We need to go step by step: some support from us, some practical usage from the RDF community, some more support from us, ...
In reply to your initial email, Martynas, I have to say that you seem to have very little knowledge about what is going on in Wikidata. If you would follow the development reports more closely, you would know that most of the work is going into components that RDF does not replace at all. Querying with SPARQL is nice, but we are still more focussed on UI issues, history management, infrastructure integration (such as pushing changes to other sites), and many more things which are completely unrelated to RDF in every way. Your suggestion that a single file format would somehow magically make the construction of one of the world-largest community-edited knowledge bases a piece of cake is just naive.
Now don't get me wrong: naive thinking has it's place in Wikidata -- it's always naive to try what others consider impossible -- but it should be combined with some positive, forward thinking attitude. I hope that our challenge to show the power of RDF to us can unleash some positive energies in you :-) I am looking forward to your results (and happy to help if you need some more details about the RDF dumps etc.).
Best wishes,
Markus
On 29.10.2014 18:26, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Martynas,
since we had this discussion on this list previously, and again I am irked by your claim that we could just use standard RDF tools out of the box for Wikidata.
I will shut up and concede that you are right if you manage to set up a standard open source RDF tool on an open source stack that contains the Wikidata knowledge base, is keeping up to date with the rate of changes that we have, and is able to answer queries from the public without choking and dying for 24 hours, before this year is over. Announce a few days in advance on this list when you will make the experiment.
Technology has advanced by three years since we made the decision not to use standard RDF tools, so I am sure it should be much easier today. But last time I talked with people writing such tools, they were rather cautious due to our requirements.
We still wouldn't have proven that it could deal with the expected QPS Wikidata will have, but heck, I would be surprised and I would admit that I was wrong with my decision if you can do that.
Seriously, we did not snub RDF and SPARQL because we don't like it or don't know it. We decided against it *because* we know it so well and we realized it does not fulfill our requirements.
Cheers, Denny
On Mon Oct 27 2014 at 6:47:05 PM Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org mailto:martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
Hey all, so I see there is some work being done on mapping Wikidata data model to RDF [1]. Just a thought: what if you actually used RDF and Wikidata's concepts modeled in it right from the start? And used standard RDF tools, APIs, query language (SPARQL) instead of building the whole thing from scratch? Is it just me or was this decision really a colossal waste ofresources?
[1] http://korrekt.org/papers/__Wikidata-RDF-export-2014.pdf <http://korrekt.org/papers/Wikidata-RDF-export-2014.pdf> Martynas http://graphityhq.com