John McClure wrote: "Nadja conflated our asking about ISO Topic Maps as a base design standard with incorporating ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED into the wikidata database"
OK what I have sofar understood is that the ISO has not (yet) published much semantically structured content, in particular John how do you know that their publications are topic maps? Because there exists a ISO Topic Map metamodel? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitopics (here another link: http://www.topicmaps.org/standards/) I guess there could also be a ISO RDF metamodel....although this would probably rather be a ISO W3C RDF metamodel :O that is RDF could be an ISO standard. That is I currently dont see anything which speaks against this or is is it already?
Moreover I am not in favor of topic maps, as explained earlier and as I had understood Wikidata wanted to use RDF and JSON but may wikidata people have changed their mind in the meantime and in the end one can probably work with these topic maps somewhat similar as one can work with RDF that is I think it may just be quite a bit more messy moreover my impression is that there is more RDF linked data in the cloud (see e.g. http://linkeddata.org/) than topic maps (http://www.topicmaps.org/) but I may be wrong.
moreover I didn't say to use ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED but suggested to use these eventually as a guideline:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576
this doesnt exclude that one could use in the end all ISO standards ever published, but one could do so incrementally.
so regarding Denny Vrandecics remark:
"Right now I am slightly confused about what your question is. Can you rephrase it and ask again? (The reference to "previous email" and links to the archive leave me merely more confused)."
I restate the questions of my posting: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576 with a slightly different wording
Is it planned by the Wikidata team that someone phones these people in Geneva and asks wether wikidata could at least base its ontology (here I mean in particular the overall classification scheme, like a hammer is a tool a.s.o) on the ISO Standard (eventually by purchasing this right) phone number: http://www.iso.org/iso/copyright.htm (in that way one would eventually not use their explicit texts and formats but could use at least their structural outline) ?
side remark: In particular I still don't see that Wikidata may not run into legal issues with the ISO.
or simply: If the ISO has an IP protection on the classification "a hammer is a tool"
and if wikidata uses the same classification (because it is more or less the only one which makes sense)
then wikidata may be doomed, bailiffs will come and carry your nice new chairs out of your office in schoeneberg and so on.... (correction: the bailiffs would bring someone who carries...)
next questions:
Is there some rich sponsor who could buy their RDF classification (or topic map classification..?) and make it openly accessible? Whats the ISO opinion on that did someone check?
Mr. Denny Vrandecic If you still don't understand these questions then please tell me exactly what you do not understand like which sentence, which word etc.
nad
2012/9/5 Nadja Kutz nadja@daytar.de:
Is it planned by the Wikidata team that someone phones these people in Geneva and asks wether wikidata could at least base its ontology (here I mean in particular the overall classification scheme, like a hammer is a tool a.s.o) on the ISO Standard (eventually by purchasing this right) phone number: http://www.iso.org/iso/copyright.htm (in that way one would eventually not use their explicit texts and formats but could use at least their structural outline) ?
No, we currently do not have any plans to contact the people at ISO in order to discuss the topic you suggest. I think in the following answers you will find the why we do not have these plans.
side remark: In particular I still don't see that Wikidata may not run into legal issues with the ISO. or simply: If the ISO has an IP protection on the classification "a hammer is a tool" and if wikidata uses the same classification (because it is more or less the only one which makes sense) then wikidata may be doomed, bailiffs will come and carry your nice new chairs out of your office in schoeneberg and so on....
I am not a lawyer, but I want to point out that there is a distinction between Copyright and other IP protection. Whereas a text about the classification of hammers may (and usually is) copyrighted, the mere fact that a hammer is a tool can not be copyrighted.
Also, we need to make a distinction between the IP for the data model of Wikidata and the content of Wikidata. To give an analogy: the source code of MediaWiki is released under the GPL. The content of Wikipedia is released under a CC license. The discussion in this thread so far has centered around the data model that is described here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Data_model
This data model relates to RDF or topic maps. We did not discuss content in this thread so far, as far as I understood.
The relationship between hammers and tools would be part of the content, not of the data model.
Is there some rich sponsor who could buy their RDF classification (or topic map classification..?) and make it openly accessible? Whats the ISO opinion on that did someone check?
We did not check with the ISO on that. We did not search for sponsors in order to fund such a data contribution. There are a number of institutions already offering their data to Wikidata, as can be seen here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Data_collaborators
In my personal opinion, appropriately answering these requests has a higher priority than finding sponsors to buy and free further data sources. But anyway, these are decisions that the editor community of Wikidata has to take once Wikidata is deployed, and not a decision that the development team can answer as it is about the content of Wikidata. Just as the MediaWiki developers do not decide on the content of Wikipedia, the Wikidata developers do not decide on the content of Wikidata. I hope the distinction makes sense.
By the way, is there a specific classification that you have in mind, or are you asking in general?
Mr. Denny Vrandecic If you still don't understand these questions then please tell me exactly what you do not understand like which sentence, which word etc.
Mrs Nadja Kutz, thank you for the questions. I hope I answered them now.
Denny
Hi Denny - your statement, that SNAKS can be "related to" RDF or topic maps, is interesting to me, particularly your reference to topic maps. I tend to interpret this as saying you believe SNAKS implements the topic map data model, represented using RDF triples, that SNAKS is informed by or itself anticipates the W3's RDF mapping for Topic Maps.
At some leisurely moment -- to the extent you have any! -- please flesh that out.
Thanks- john
On 05.09.2012 04:01, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
The discussion in this thread so far has centered around the data model that is described here: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Data_model [1]> This data model relates to RDF or topic maps.
Links: ------ [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Data_model
Hi Nadja -
To my knowledge ISO has not published, nor is intending to publish, instances of topic maps representing the content of their numerous publications, using either their (ISO's) standard for Topic Maps (ISO/IEC 13250), or any other ISO or non-ISO standard. Forgive me if I ever gave that impression.
You provided a nice link to unofficial topic map standards, thank you. Here's others: http://www.garshol.priv.no/download/tmlinks.html [3].
Theoretically W3C is engaged in mapping Topic Maps to an RDF representation, but I've not seen the fruits of that (important!) work. I hope when such is published all questions about copyrights will be concommitantly resolved.
Regards - john
On 05.09.2012 03:17, Nadja Kutz wrote:
John McClure wrote:
"Nadja conflated our asking about ISO Topic
Maps as a base design standard with incorporating ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED into the wikidata database"
their publications are topic
maps? Because there exists a ISO Topic Map metamodel? wikidata people have changed their min
with RDF that is I think it may just be
quite a bit more messy moreover my impression is that there is more RDF linked da
ud (see e.g. moreover I didn't say to use ALL ISO STANDARDS
EVER PUBLISHED but suggested to use these
2px solid;
margin-left:5px; width:100%">http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576 [1]
s doesnt exclude that one could use in the end all ISO standards
ever published, but one could do so incrementally. rephrase it and ask again? (The reference to "previous email" and link
px;
border-left:#1010ff 2px solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">I restate the questions of my posting:
cle.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576">http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576the ISO Standard phone number: http://www.iso.org/iso/copyright.htm [2]
Links: ------ [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576 [2] http://www.iso.org/iso/copyright.htm [3] http://www.garshol.priv.no/download/tmlinks.html