Hello Maarten,
We do Semantic SEO so we heavily rely on the schema.org vocabulary. We're using a SPARQL approach, our input parameter is a DBpedia URI which we use to retrieve schema.org types and properties using the following properties chains:
* wdt:P31* (instance of) /wdt:P279* (subclass of) /wdt:P1709* (equivalent class) to retrieve the schema.org types * wdt:P1628 (equivalent property) to retrieve the schema.org properties
The result is quite encouraging, e.g. [1]:
[1] https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/u/1/#url=https%3A%2F%...
I hope this helps.
Cheers, David
► HelixWare online video platform http://bit.ly/e-helixcloud ► WordLift semantic web for WordPress http://bit.ly/e-wordlift ► RedLink - making sense of your data http://bit.ly/e-redlink ► US Export compliance extension for WooCommerce http://bit.ly/1864GLD ══════════════════════════════════════════════ ► Twitter: @ziodave --- ► InsideOut10 s.r.l. (IT-11381771002) ══════════════════════════════════════════════
On 22 September 2018 at 13:28, Maarten Dammers maarten@mdammers.nl wrote:
Hi everyone,
Last week I presented Wikidata at the Semantics conference in Vienna ( https://2018.semantics.cc/ ). One question I asked people was: What is keeping you from using Wikidata? One of the common responses is that it's quite hard to combine Wikidata with the rest of the semantic web. We have our own private ontology that's a bit on an island. Most of our triples are in our own private format and not available in a more generic, more widely use ontology.
Let's pick an example: Claude Lussan. No clue who he is, but my bot seems to have added some links and the item isn't too big. Our URI is http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729 and this is equivalent of http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396 and http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id /thes/p173983111 . If you look at http://www.wikidata.org/entity /Q2977729.rdf this equivalence is represented as: <wdtn:P214 rdf:resource="http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396%22/%3E <wdtn:P1006 rdf:resource="http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 "/>
Also outputting it in a more generic way would probably make using it easier than it is right now. Last discussion about this was at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1921 , but no response since June.
That's one way of linking up, but another way is using equivalent property ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 ) and equivalent class ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1709 ). See for example sex or gender ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21) how it's mapped to other ontologies. This won't produce easier RDF, but some smart downstream users have figured out some SPARQL queries. So linking up our properties and classes to other ontologies will make using our data easier. This is a first step. Maybe it will be used in the future to generate more RDF, maybe not and we'll just document the SPARQL approach properly.
The equivalent property and equivalent class are used, but not that much. Did anyone already try a structured approach with reporting? I'm considering parsing popular ontology descriptions and producing reports of what is linked to what so it's easy to make missing links, but I don't want to do double work here.
What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of the ones I came across:
- https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html
- http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
- http://schema.org/
- https://creativecommons.org/ns
- http://dbpedia.org/ontology/
- http://vocab.org/open/
Any suggestions?
Maarten
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
