-----Original Message-----
From: denny.vrandecic(a)wikimedia.de
To: wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Expiration date for data
We will have a time datatype, and every property is strongly typed. This
is also true for properties used as qualifiers.
Regarding the priority of qualifiers: very high. They are the next major
UI feature to be deployed, and as far as I can tell from the progress of the
team it looks like they will be deployed in April.
Cheers,
Denny
"every property is strongly typed" is clear, as you refer to datatypes, but
not to "types" in the rdf:type sense, which of course are owl:Class things.
When talking about owl:Class things it's nice to reference an OWL ontology,
which maybe I've missed, from Wikidata. So I've learned from sniffing around
that Wikidata's ontology is going in the direction of
http://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd. And that P107 is semantically
identical to rdf:type.
Is this correct? If so, will you add "rdf:type" as an alternate label?
Although I disagree with some of below which I ran across at
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5328472, I do note that P107 on
Wikidata is entitled "main type (GND)" among other indications. How does
adopting a specific ontology accord with the view in your blog strenuously
promoting folksonomies over ontologies?
That is, a folksonomy in the sense that owl:Class's are implicitly defined,
whose "instances" are associated as a "class" by virtue of possessing
in
common certain properties and or property values. IOW, your blog implies
little need to define "classes" at all. You face a challenge though because
soon people want to attach a name to the bundle of properties and-or
property values that comprise a "class" of things, to refer to them as a
collection.
Any light you can shed about ontology plans for Wikidata would be
appreciated!
thanks - john
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
emw 15 days ago | link
Property P107 (
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P107) has emerged as
Wikidata's de facto upper ontology. It currently consists of six main types:
person, organization, event, creative work, term, and geographical feature.
It's essentially a clean port of the high-level entities from the GND
Ontology -- a controlled vocabulary developed by the German National Library
and released last summer (
http://d-nb.info/standards/elementset/gnd).
There's a fair amount of debate over that property. Are those current high
level types (person, place, work, event, organization, term) a good fit for
a knowledgebase that aims to structure all knowledge and not just library
holdings? Does classifying subjects like inertia, DNA, Alzheimer's disease,
dog, etc. as simply "terms" make sense?
More reading related to Wikidata, ontology and types:
https://blog.wikimedia.de/2013/02/22/restricting-the-world/.