> Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 21:15:14 +0430
> From: ladsgroup@gmail.com
> To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories.
>
> Guys!
> You can continue this conversion in a more public place like WD:PC
> It's bothering for people like me to receive e-mail every five minutes
> in a topic which I'm not interested
> So please continue this in a somewhere else
>
> On 5/7/13, Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com> wrote:
> > What is interesting about categories, is that no matter how shaky the
> > system is, these are pretty much the only meta data that there is for
> > articles, because as I said before, just about every article has one.
> > The weakness of DBpedia is that it is only programmed to pick up
> > articles with infoboxes, and there just aren't that many of those.
> >
> > 2013/5/7, Michael Hale <hale.michael.jr@live.com>:
> >> Pardon the spam, but it is only 2000 categories. Four steps would be
> >> 25000.
> >>
> >> From: hale.michael.jr@live.com
> >> To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 12:10:51 -0400
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I spoke too soon. That is the only loop at two steps. But if you go out
> >> three steps (25000 categories) you find another 23 loops. Organizational
> >> studies <-> organizations, housing -> household behavior and family
> >> economics -> home -> housing, religious pluralism <-> religious
> >> persecution,
> >> secularism <-> religious pluralism, learning -> inductive reasoning ->
> >> scientific theories -> sociological theories -> social systems -> society
> >> ->
> >> education -> learning, etc.
> >>
> >> From: hale.michael.jr@live.com
> >> To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 11:31:24 -0400
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I don't know if these are useful, but if we go two steps from the
> >> fundamental categories on the English Wikipedia we find several loops.
> >> Knowledge contains information and information contains knowledge, for
> >> example. Not allowing loops might force you to have to give different
> >> ranks
> >> to two categories that are equally important.
> >>
> >> Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:41:45 +0200
> >> From: hellmann@informatik.uni-leipzig.de
> >> To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Am 07.05.2013 14:01, schrieb emw:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Yes, there is and should be more than one
> >> "ontology", and that is
> >>
> >> already the case with categories, which are so flexible they can
> >> loop
> >>
> >> around and become their own grandfather."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Can someone give an example of where it would be useful to have
> >> a cycle in an ontology?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Navigation! How else are you going to find back where you came from
> >> ;)
> >>
> >> Wikipieda categories were invented originally for navigation,
> >> right? Cycles are not soo bad, then...
> >>
> >> Now we live in a new era.
> >>
> >> -- Sebastian
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To my knowledge cycles are considered a problem in
> >> categorization, and would be a problem in a large-scaled
> >> ontology-based classification system as well. My impression has
> >> been that Wikidata's ontology would be a directed acyclic graph
> >> (DAG) with a single root at entity (thing).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Mathieu
> >> Stumpf <psychoslave@culture-libre.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> Le
> >> 2013-05-06 18:13, Jane Darnell a écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Yes, there is and should be more than one "ontology",
> >> and that is
> >>
> >> already the case with categories, which are so flexible
> >> they can loop
> >>
> >> around and become their own grandfather.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To my mind, categories indeed feet better how we think. I'm
> >> not sure "grandfather" is a canonical term in such a graph,
> >> I think it's simply a cycle[1].
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_%28graph_theory%29
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Dbpedia complaints should be discussed on that list, I
> >> am not a
> >>
> >> dbpedia user, though I think it's a useful project to
> >> have around.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry I didn't want to make off topic messages, nor sound
> >> complaining. I just wanted to give my feedback, hopefuly a
> >> constructive one, on a message posted on this list. I
> >> transfered my message to dbpedia mailing list.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Sent from my iPad
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On May 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Jona Christopher
> >> Sahnwaldt <jc@sahnwaldt.de>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Mathieu,
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I think the DBpedia mailing list is a better place
> >> for discussing the
> >>
> >> DBpedia ontology:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
> >>
> >> Drop us a message if you have questions or concerns.
> >> I'm sure someone
> >>
> >> will answer your questions. I am not an ontology
> >> expert, so I'll just
> >>
> >> leave it at that.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> JC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 6 May 2013 11:01, Mathieu Stumpf
> >> <psychoslave@culture-libre.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> Le 2013-05-06 00:09, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt a
> >> écrit :
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 5 May 2013 20:48, Mathieu Stumpf
> >> <psychoslave@culture-libre.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Le dimanche 05 mai 2013 à 16:28 +0200, Jona
> >> Christopher Sahnwaldt a
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> The ontology is maintained by a community
> >> that everyone can join at
> >>
> >> http://mappings.dbpedia.org/
> >> . An overview of the current class
> >>
> >> hierarchy is here:
> >>
> >>
> >> http://mappings.dbpedia.org/server/ontology/classes/
> >> . You're more
> >>
> >> than welcome to help! I think talk pages are
> >> not used enough on the
> >>
> >> mappings wiki, so if you have ideas,
> >> misgivings or questions about the
> >>
> >> DBpedia ontology, the place to go is
> >> probably the mailing list:
> >>
> >>
> >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you maintain several "ontologies" in
> >> parallel? Otherwise, how do you
> >>
> >> plane to avoid a "cultural bias", and how do
> >> you think it may impact the
> >>
> >> other projects? I mean, if you try to
> >> establish "one semantic hierarchy
> >>
> >> to rule them all", couldn't it arise cultural
> >> diversity concerns?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> We maintain only one version of the ontology. We
> >> have a pretty diverse
> >>
> >> community, so I hope the editors will take care
> >> of that. So far, the
> >>
> >> ontology does have a Western bias though, more
> >> or less like the
> >>
> >> English Wikipedia or the current list of
> >> Wikidata properties.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> JC
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I can't see how your community could take care of
> >> it when they have no
> >>
> >> choice but not contribute at all or contribute to
> >> one ontology whose
> >>
> >> structure already defined main axes. To my mind,
> >> it's a structural bias, you
> >>
> >> can't go out of it without going out of the
> >> structure. As far as I
> >>
> >> understand, the current "ontology"[1] you are
> >> using is a tree with a central
> >>
> >> root, and not a DAG or any other graph. In my
> >> humble opinion, if you need a
> >>
> >> central element/leaf, it should be precisely
> >> "ontology"/representation,
> >>
> >> under which one may build several world
> >> representation networks, and even
> >>
> >> more relations between this networks which would
> >> represent how one may links
> >>
> >> concepts of different cultures.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> To my mind the problem is much more important than
> >> with a local Wikipedia
> >>
> >> (or other Wikimedia projects). Because each
> >> project can expose subjects
> >>
> >> through the collective representation of this
> >> local community. But with
> >>
> >> wikidata central role, isn't there a risk of
> >> "short-circuit" this local
> >>
> >> expressions?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Also, what is your metric to measure a community
> >> diversity? I don't want to
> >>
> >> be pessimist, nor to look like I blame the current
> >> wikidata community, but
> >>
> >> it doesn't seems evident to me that it currently
> >> represent human diversity.
> >>
> >> I think that there are probably a lot of
> >> economical/social/educational/etc
> >>
> >> barriers that may seems like nothing to anyone
> >> already involved in the
> >>
> >> wikidata community, but which are gigantic for
> >> those
> >>
> >> non-part-of-the-community people.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Now to give my own opinion of the
> >> representation/ontology you are building,
> >>
> >> I would say that it's based on exactly the
> >> opposite premisses I would use.
> >>
> >> Wikidata Q1 is universe, then you have earth,
> >> life, death and human, and it
> >>
> >> seems to me that the ontology you are building
> >> have the same
> >>
> >> anthropocentrist bias of the universe. To my mind,
> >> should I peak a central
> >>
> >> concept to begin with, I would not take universe,
> >> but perception, because
> >>
> >> perceptions are what is given to you before you
> >> even have a concept for it.
> >>
> >> Even within solipsism you can't deny perceptions
> >> (at least as long as the
> >>
> >> solipcist pretend to exist, but if she doesn't,
> >> who care about the opinion
> >>
> >> of a non-existing person :P). Well I wouldn't want
> >> to flood this list with
> >>
> >> epistemological concerns, but it just to say that
> >> even for a someone like me
> >>
> >> that you may probably categorise as
> >> western-minded, this "ontology" looks
> >>
> >> like the opposite of my personal opinion on the
> >> matter. I don't say that I
> >>
> >> am right and the rest of the community is wrong. I
> >> say that I doubt that you
> >>
> >> can build an ontology which would fit every
> >> cultural represantions into a
> >>
> >> tree of concepts. But maybe it's not your goal in
> >> the first place, so you
> >>
> >> may explain me what is your goal then.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> [1] I use quotes because it's seems to me that
> >> what most IT people call an
> >>
> >> ontology, is what I would call a representation.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
> >>
> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >>
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
> >>
> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >>
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
> >>
> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Association Culture-Libre
> >>
> >> http://www.culture-libre.org/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >>
> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
> >>
> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann
> >>
> >> Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig
> >>
> >> Events: NLP & DBpedia 2013
> >> (http://nlp-dbpedia2013.blogs.aksw.org, Deadline: *July 8th*)
> >>
> >> Venha para a Alemanha como PhD:
> >> http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/csf
> >>
> >> Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://linguistics.okfn.org ,
> >> http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary , http://dbpedia.org
> >>
> >> Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann
> >>
> >> Research Group: http://aksw.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikidata-l mailing list
> > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >
>
>
> --
> Amir
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l