Hi,
I am investigating some concepts about signal processing and relating them to data manipulation. It is somehow difficult because the way computer scientists relate to concepts is very dogmatic, something is either black or white, however I have not found much on "things that under certain circumstances can be considered black-ish, and under another set of circumstances can be considered white-ish" http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2012/06/25/shades-of-grey-optical-illusi...
In signal processing there is the concept of amplitude which is just the signal strength. For humans language is like an amplitude communication process where the receiver picks up not only the signal, but also its amplitude depending on context, awareness, previous knowledge, etc. factors which in turn can be considered waves being processed by the ontological biological-organizational complex, the body-mind.
It is tough to describe that a certain concept might have a certain amplitude in some situations and other amplitude in other situations, and perhaps even harder to make a human interface for it. Has anyone attempted it in the past? If Q items are not static entities, what is the best way to convey that they are not? And is it possible or desirable at all?
Perhaps these questions are more suitable for a Wikidata 2.0, or perhaps it is already doable, who knows.
Any thoughts?
Cheers, Micru
Hi Micru and Wikidatans,
Anthropology actively develops participant observation as methodology in academic spheres in multiple languages, and it also centralizes writing about peoples and field sites and related anthropological questions in a globalizing world these days. I wonder how one best could add fairly open participant observation field note "data fields" as notation to Q items in Wikidata ... as one sensible approach to the questions you're asking, anticipating versions after Wikidata 2 as well. Apply the wiki Wikipedia approach to Wikidata Q items? While one could further focus such a wiki / writing / Q item approach in terms of amplitude, and a host of other physics' concepts, coding Wikidata database Q items for writing-openness in specific ways in terms of developing data manipulation has merit.
Scott
Hi,
I am investigating some concepts about signal processing and relating them to data manipulation. It is somehow difficult because the way computer scientists relate to concepts is very dogmatic, something is either black or white, however I have not found much on "things that under certain circumstances can be considered black-ish, and under another set of circumstances can be considered white-ish" http://freethoughtblogs.com/singham/2012/06/25/shades-of-grey-optical-illusi...
In signal processing there is the concept of amplitude which is just the signal strength. For humans language is like an amplitude communication process where the receiver picks up not only the signal, but also its amplitude depending on context, awareness, previous knowledge, etc. factors which in turn can be considered waves being processed by the ontological biological-organizational complex, the body-mind.
It is tough to describe that a certain concept might have a certain amplitude in some situations and other amplitude in other situations, and perhaps even harder to make a human interface for it. Has anyone attempted it in the past? If Q items are not static entities, what is the best way to convey that they are not? And is it possible or desirable at all?
Perhaps these questions are more suitable for a Wikidata 2.0, or perhaps it is already doable, who knows.
Any thoughts?
Cheers, Micru
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hi Micru,
On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 2:56 PM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
It is tough to describe that a certain concept might have a certain amplitude in some situations and other amplitude in other situations, and perhaps even harder to make a human interface for it. Has anyone attempted it in the past? If Q items are not static entities, what is the best way to convey that they are not? And is it possible or desirable at all?
If you can describe the value of the concept you are referring to with a mathematical function, it is enough if Wikidata contains the fundamental/basic data values that can be used in the function to compute the value of the concept in a certain situation. I don't think Wikidata needs to contain all the possible outputs of that function. For example, if the data about the boiling point of water at sea-level is available in Wikidata, one can use that to compute the boiling point of water at other pressures by using a formula.
Perhaps these questions are more suitable for a Wikidata 2.0, or perhaps it is already doable, who knows.
Please correct me if I'm wrong: it seems to be tne case that these questions are more about the interfaces and technologies built on top of Wikidata, not so much about Wikidata itself (except for the point that the fundamental data should exist in Wikidata).
Best, Leila
Cheers, Micru
Hi Leila
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Leila Zia leila@wikimedia.org wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong: it seems to be tne case that these questions are more about the interfaces and technologies built on top of Wikidata, not so much about Wikidata itself (except for the point that the fundamental data should exist in Wikidata).
Yes, in a way it is more about representation that anything else, but it also has to do with the conceptual framework. In the current organization it is assumed that I want to know about an specific Q item, whereas in my thinking about signals I would prefer to have an overview of all items that are related to a keyword.
For instance if I enter Chopin, either I have to select one item from a list or I have to perform a search, there is no middle way of displaying an overview of all items grouped by the kind of relationship that they might have to the keyword chopin. In a way it is a bit like creating a disambiguation page on the fly, with the added difficulty of grouping elements that belong together. For instance if I search Bach, it would make sense to group people with the string "bach" related to the same family together, and divide it by topic, like a sort of disambiguation page for data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bach_%28disambiguation%29
What is difficult is to find an automatic arrangement that works for most situations, or explore a different way of creating data disambiguation pages, perhaps based on current disambiguation items. Is there any way to make this item more useful with some visualization of items it disambiguates? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q107809
Cheers, Micru
Hey David,
On Jun 1, 2015, at 3:14 PM, David Cuenca Tudela dacuetu@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Leila
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Leila Zia <leila@wikimedia.org mailto:leila@wikimedia.org> wrote: Please correct me if I'm wrong: it seems to be tne case that these questions are more about the interfaces and technologies built on top of Wikidata, not so much about Wikidata itself (except for the point that the fundamental data should exist in Wikidata).
Yes, in a way it is more about representation that anything else, but it also has to do with the conceptual framework. In the current organization it is assumed that I want to know about an specific Q item, whereas in my thinking about signals I would prefer to have an overview of all items that are related to a keyword.
For instance if I enter Chopin, either I have to select one item from a list or I have to perform a search, there is no middle way of displaying an overview of all items grouped by the kind of relationship that they might have to the keyword chopin. In a way it is a bit like creating a disambiguation page on the fly, with the added difficulty of grouping elements that belong together. For instance if I search Bach, it would make sense to group people with the string "bach" related to the same family together, and divide it by topic, like a sort of disambiguation page for data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bach_%28disambiguation%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bach_(disambiguation)
What is difficult is to find an automatic arrangement that works for most situations, or explore a different way of creating data disambiguation pages, perhaps based on current disambiguation items. Is there any way to make this item more useful with some visualization of items it disambiguates? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q107809 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q107809
Cheers, Micru
I second Leila, it sounds like what you’re referring to (disambiguation, grouping related items) should be addressed by the backend / search API and exposed by the UI, and not solved by explicitly (as in, manually) representing and storing these relations in wikidata.
Dario
If I understand you correctly, your are looking for a way to describe different meanings or facettes of a *word*, building clusters based on what other concept each of these meanings is related to.
Since Wikidata does not (yet) deal with words at all, we can only defer this until we do (see the Wikidata/Wiktionary proposal). But others have done this: have a look at the "Wortschatz" project by the University of Leipzig: http://corpora2.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/res.php?corpusId=deu_newscrawl_201...
The graph at the bottom shows clusters of collocations for each meaning/facette. It's a bit hard to find good examples though, usually one meaning is very dominant.
Am 01.06.2015 um 15:14 schrieb David Cuenca Tudela:
Hi Leila
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Leila Zia <leila@wikimedia.org mailto:leila@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong: it seems to be tne case that these questions are more about the interfaces and technologies built on top of Wikidata, not so much about Wikidata itself (except for the point that the fundamental data should exist in Wikidata).Yes, in a way it is more about representation that anything else, but it also has to do with the conceptual framework. In the current organization it is assumed that I want to know about an specific Q item, whereas in my thinking about signals I would prefer to have an overview of all items that are related to a keyword.
For instance if I enter Chopin, either I have to select one item from a list or I have to perform a search, there is no middle way of displaying an overview of all items grouped by the kind of relationship that they might have to the keyword chopin. In a way it is a bit like creating a disambiguation page on the fly, with the added difficulty of grouping elements that belong together. For instance if I search Bach, it would make sense to group people with the string "bach" related to the same family together, and divide it by topic, like a sort of disambiguation page for data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bach_%28disambiguation%29
What is difficult is to find an automatic arrangement that works for most situations, or explore a different way of creating data disambiguation pages, perhaps based on current disambiguation items. Is there any way to make this item more useful with some visualization of items it disambiguates? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q107809
Cheers, Micru
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Daniel, thanks for your example, it looks very good!
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 3:31 PM, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
If I understand you correctly, your are looking for a way to describe different meanings or facettes of a *word*, building clusters based on what other concept each of these meanings is related to.
Since Wikidata does not (yet) deal with words at all, we can only defer this until we do (see the Wikidata/Wiktionary proposal). But others have done this: have a look at the "Wortschatz" project by the University of Leipzig:
http://corpora2.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/res.php?corpusId=deu_newscrawl_201...
The graph at the bottom shows clusters of collocations for each meaning/facette. It's a bit hard to find good examples though, usually one meaning is very dominant.
Am 01.06.2015 um 15:14 schrieb David Cuenca Tudela:
Hi Leila
On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 9:32 AM, Leila Zia <leila@wikimedia.org mailto:leila@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Please correct me if I'm wrong: it seems to be tne case that thesequestions
are more about the interfaces and technologies built on top ofWikidata, not
so much about Wikidata itself (except for the point that thefundamental
data should exist in Wikidata).Yes, in a way it is more about representation that anything else, but it
also
has to do with the conceptual framework. In the current organization it
is
assumed that I want to know about an specific Q item, whereas in my
thinking
about signals I would prefer to have an overview of all items that are
related
to a keyword.
For instance if I enter Chopin, either I have to select one item from a
list or
I have to perform a search, there is no middle way of displaying an
overview of
all items grouped by the kind of relationship that they might have to the keyword chopin. In a way it is a bit like creating a disambiguation page
on the
fly, with the added difficulty of grouping elements that belong
together. For
instance if I search Bach, it would make sense to group people with the
string
"bach" related to the same family together, and divide it by topic, like
a sort
of disambiguation page for data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bach_%28disambiguation%29
What is difficult is to find an automatic arrangement that works for most situations, or explore a different way of creating data disambiguation
pages,
perhaps based on current disambiguation items. Is there any way to make
this
item more useful with some visualization of items it disambiguates? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q107809
Cheers, Micru
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Thank's for the explanation. I think the video was most challenging for me. I only made a simple screencast but 60 seconds was a way to narrow time frame for me. Also the time used for making all those parts was a key factor since I have a tendency to put too much of that into these things even tough I'm never fully satisfied with the results anyway. But I wanted to make it somewhat presentable because I cannot do that myself at the award ceremony on Thursday.
Anyway, it's nice to finally see more contributions coming in now, still an hour to go :-)
On Sat May 30 16:40:17 UTC 2015, Jan Ainali wrote:
Great!>
Out of curiosity, what rules were dissuating?>
For reference: We added the the 60 second video since it is required for one of the externally funded prizes. This can be as simple as a screencast showing off the features of the submission. The infographic might be as simple as a still of the tool, that will be enough for qualification. But if it also explains what the submission is good for, the jury will count that as a plus.>
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*>
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se 0729 - 67 29 48>
*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>
2015-05-30 18:27 GMT+02:00 Georg Wild <georg.wild at mailbox.tu-dresden.de>:>
I will add my submission on monday when I have everything done and ready. Creating the parts required by the submission rules nearly dissuaded me from taking part to be honest, but I didn't want to miss out because I think ViziData [1] is perfect for this :-)
[1] https://github.com/gordelwig/ViziData
On 30.05.2015 10:25, Jan Ainali wrote:
So far there is only one listing at the submissions page, however it is unclear if that is intended to become a proper submission or not.
/Med vänliga hälsningar, Jan Ainali/
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se 0729 - 67 29 48
/Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör./ Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se
2015-05-30 10:01 GMT+02:00 Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa at openmailbox.org <mailto:ricordisamoa at openmailbox.org>>:
Il 26/05/2015 21:54, Jan Ainali ha scritto:Hi, I just wanted to let you know that there has been a few more prizes added to the contest (including a travel grant to Brazil!). Please checkout http://wvc.se for an update list. Also, if people here are planing to join the contest, please list yourself (non-binding) on this list [1], to help us that arranges this to be prepared on the scale of the number of participants.Is there any participant yet?[1]https://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Projekt:%C3%96ppna_data_2015/Visualisering/T%C...
/Med vänliga hälsningar, Jan Ainali/ Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://wikimedia.se> 0729 - 67 29 48 /Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör./ Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata at lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata atlists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata at lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- ☘ excellentiā excelsiōre ☘
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata at lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hello!
The jury has selected the winners of the Wikidata Visualization Challenge, and the winner is Vizidata! Runner up are Wikidata Spiral and on third place are Wikidata Topicmaps UI. Read the jury comments and find the visualizations from https://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Projekt:%C3%96ppna_data_2015/Visualisering/T%C...
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se 0729 - 67 29 48
*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se
2015-06-01 23:02 GMT+02:00 Georg Wild Georg.Wild@mailbox.tu-dresden.de:
Thank's for the explanation. I think the video was most challenging for me. I only made a simple screencast but 60 seconds was a way to narrow time frame for me. Also the time used for making all those parts was a key factor since I have a tendency to put too much of that into these things even tough I'm never fully satisfied with the results anyway. But I wanted to make it somewhat presentable because I cannot do that myself at the award ceremony on Thursday.
Anyway, it's nice to finally see more contributions coming in now, still an hour to go :-)
On Sat May 30 16:40:17 UTC 2015, Jan Ainali wrote:
Great!>
Out of curiosity, what rules were dissuating?>
For reference: We added the the 60 second video since it is required for one of the externally funded prizes. This can be as simple as a screencast showing off the features of the submission. The infographic might be as simple as a still of the tool, that will be enough for qualification. But if it also explains what the submission is good for, the jury will count that as a plus.>
*Med vänliga hälsningar,Jan Ainali*>
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se 0729 - 67 29 48>
*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör.* Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>
2015-05-30 18:27 GMT+02:00 Georg Wild <georg.wild at mailbox.tu-dresden.de>:>
I will add my submission on monday when I have everything done and
ready. Creating the parts required by the submission rules nearly dissuaded me from taking part to be honest, but I didn't want to miss out because I think ViziData [1] is perfect for this :-)
[1] https://github.com/gordelwig/ViziData
On 30.05.2015 10:25, Jan Ainali wrote:
So far there is only one listing at the submissions page, however it is unclear if that is intended to become a proper submission or not.
/Med vänliga hälsningar, Jan Ainali/
Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige http://wikimedia.se 0729 - 67 29 48
/Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör./ Bli medlem. http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se
2015-05-30 10:01 GMT+02:00 Ricordisamoa <ricordisamoa at
openmailbox.org
<mailto:ricordisamoa at openmailbox.org>>:
Il 26/05/2015 21:54, Jan Ainali ha scritto:Hi, I just wanted to let you know that there has been a few more prizes added to the contest (including a travel grant to Brazil!). Please checkout http://wvc.se for an update list. Also, if people here are planing to join the contest, please list yourself (non-binding) on this list [1], to help us that arranges this to be prepared on the scale of the number of participants.Is there any participant yet?[1]https://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Projekt:%C3%96ppna_data_2015/Visualisering/T%C...
/Med vänliga hälsningar, Jan Ainali/ Verksamhetschef, Wikimedia Sverige <http://wikimedia.se> 0729 - 67 29 48 /Tänk dig en värld där varje människa har fri tillgång till mänsklighetens samlade kunskap. Det är det vi gör./ Bli medlem. <http://blimedlem.wikimedia.se>_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata at lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata atlists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata at lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- ☘ excellentiā excelsiōre ☘
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata at lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 11.06.2015 12:29, Jan Ainali wrote:
Hello!
The jury has selected the winners of the Wikidata Visualization Challenge, and the winner is Vizidata! Runner up are Wikidata Spiral and on third place are Wikidata Topicmaps UI. Read the jury comments and find the visualizations from https://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Projekt:%C3%96ppna_data_2015/Visualisering/T%C... https://se.wikimedia.org/wiki/Projekt:%C3%96ppna_data_2015/Visualisering/T%C3%A4vling/Jury_comments
Whew! Congratulations, Georg (I know how much work you put into it!), and good luck with the next stage ... Also congratulations to the other finalists, and thanks, Jan and Wikimedia Sverige, for organising this.
Cheers,
Markus
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
Whew! Congratulations, Georg (I know how much work you put into it!), and good luck with the next stage ... Also congratulations to the other finalists, and thanks, Jan and Wikimedia Sverige, for organising this.
Big +1. Congrats! :)
Cheers Lydia
Congratulations, Georg and All!
Scott
On 7:12AM, Thu, Jun 11, 2015 Lydia Pintscher lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
Whew! Congratulations, Georg (I know how much work you put into it!), and good luck with the next stage ... Also congratulations to the other finalists, and thanks, Jan and Wikimedia Sverige, for organising this.
Big +1. Congrats! :)
Cheers Lydia
-- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Yay, thanks everyone :)
It's really nice to see that the effort put into this project is recognizable (I found the jury comments to sound quite flattering). There are still plenty of details where the application can be improved and made more user friendly so I'm looking forward to do a bit more polishing and see how it will compete in the next stage.
The biggest gripe I personally still have with the app is performance. Especially with the items dataset it's just far from what can be called "smooth". Unfortunately there is not very much I can do about it with the current architecture and right now I don't think it would be worth the resources required unless one could expect at least a 3 or 4-fold increase in performance. And after all, it's still a javascript app - I think 10 years ago one would probably be seen as a little crazy when proposing to create a dynamic viz of 2 Million datapoints in javascript. Thats also an interesting way to look at it. :)
Thanks for the support, looking forward to proudly wear my Wikidata shirt ;-)
Georg
On 06/11/2015 04:32 PM, Scott MacLeod wrote:
Congratulations, Georg and All!
Scott
On 7:12AM, Thu, Jun 11, 2015 Lydia Pintscher <lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de mailto:lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 3:26 PM, Markus Krötzsch <markus@semantic-mediawiki.org <mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>> wrote: > Whew! Congratulations, Georg (I know how much work you put into it!), and > good luck with the next stage ... Also congratulations to the other > finalists, and thanks, Jan and Wikimedia Sverige, for organising this. Big +1. Congrats! :) Cheers Lydia -- Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher Product Manager for Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 10963 Berlin www.wikimedia.de <http://www.wikimedia.de> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata