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(a)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"/>
<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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata