Hi,
An increasing number of wiki pages use the
{{Mapit-AUS-suburbscale|long=151.21459|lat=-33.87531}}
Type notation to indicate the page relates to a specific location.
Where would I go to request that this information is also embedded into a meta tag for the page e.g. <meta name="ICBM" content="-33.87531,151.21459" />
So capable browsers/search engines can use this information more semantically ?
Cheers,
Neil
This code only tells MediaWiki to embed the contents of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Mapit-AUS-suburbscale into the article. Right now, no template is able to modify anything within the <head> tag, which is where any <meta> tag would reside. It might be possible to use sitewide JavaScript to do it, but then that wouldn't be useful for search engines.
Neil Phillips wrote:
Hi,
An increasing number of wiki pages use the
{{Mapit-AUS-suburbscale|long=151.21459|lat=-33.87531}}
Type notation to indicate the page relates to a specific location.
Where would I go to request that this information is also embedded into a meta tag for the page e.g.
<meta name="ICBM" content="-33.87531,151.21459" />
So capable browsers/search engines can use this information more semantically ?
Cheers,
Neil
Hello Neil and all,
An increasing number of wiki pages use the
{{Mapit-AUS-suburbscale|long=151.21459|lat=-33.87531}}
Type notation to indicate the page relates to a specific location.
Where would I go to request that this information is also embedded into a meta tag for the page e.g.
<meta name="ICBM" content="-33.87531,151.21459" />
So capable browsers/search engines can use this information more semantically ?
One option would be to use the "Semantic MediaWiki" [1] extension and simply annotate the template. Then each page has a link in its header to an RDF file containingthe information.
A sample of such an annotated page is at http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php?title=Bundeena%2C_New_South_Wales
- it looks exactly as always (but has a header link to RDF). The trick is in the tempate: http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php/Template:Geolinks-AUS-suburbscale
and the result is this RDF: <!-- exported page data --> <smw:Thing rdf:about="&thing;Bundeena-2C_New_South_Wales"> rdfs:labelBundeena, New South Wales</rdfs:label> <smw:hasArticle rdf:resource="&wikiurl;Bundeena%2C_New_South_Wales"/> <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="&wikiurl;Special:ExportRDF/Bundeena%2C_New_South_Wales"/> <attribute:Longitude rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal%22%3E151.15406</attribute:Longitude> <attribute:Latitute rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal%22%3E-34.08806</attribute:Latitute> </smw:Thing>
Does this help?
Kind regards,
Max Völkel -- Dipl.-Inform. Max Völkel, Universität Karlsruhe / FZI nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org voelkel@fzi.de +49 721 9654-854 www.xam.de
First Workshop on Semantic Wikis: http://semwiki.org
Is there a schedule for the use of semantic mediawiki in wikipedia?
Plyd
On 5/25/06, Max Völkel voelkel@fzi.de wrote:
Hello Neil and all,
An increasing number of wiki pages use the
{{Mapit-AUS-suburbscale|long=151.21459|lat=-33.87531}}
Type notation to indicate the page relates to a specific location.
Where would I go to request that this information is also embedded into a meta tag for the page e.g.
<meta name="ICBM" content="-33.87531,151.21459" />
So capable browsers/search engines can use this information more semantically ?
One option would be to use the "Semantic MediaWiki" [1] extension and simply annotate the template. Then each page has a link in its header to an RDF file containingthe information.
A sample of such an annotated page is at http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php?title=Bundeena%2C_New_South_Wales
- it looks exactly as always (but has a header link to RDF). The trick is in the tempate:
http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php/Template:Geolinks-AUS-suburbscale
and the result is this RDF:
<!-- exported page data -->
<smw:Thing rdf:about="&thing;Bundeena-2C_New_South_Wales"> <rdfs:label>Bundeena, New South Wales</rdfs:label> <smw:hasArticle rdf:resource="&wikiurl;Bundeena%2C_New_South_Wales"/> <rdfs:isDefinedBy rdf:resource="&wikiurl;Special:ExportRDF/Bundeena%2C_New_South_Wales"/> <attribute:Longitude rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal">151.15406</attribute:Longitude> <attribute:Latitute rdf:datatype="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal">-34.08806</attribute:Latitute> </smw:Thing>Does this help?
Kind regards,
Max Völkel
Dipl.-Inform. Max Völkel, Universität Karlsruhe / FZI nepomuk.semanticdesktop.org voelkel@fzi.de +49 721 9654-854 www.xam.de
First Workshop on Semantic Wikis: http://semwiki.org
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
May I ask why?
Plyd
On 5/26/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Plyd wrote:
Is there a schedule for the use of semantic mediawiki in wikipedia?
No.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Because it's not that useful, not a part of an original plan and implemented by a third party, and not well implemented at that. *Maybe* when it matures a bit, and a definite need can be established.
On May 25, 2006, at 2:34 PM, Plyd wrote:
May I ask why?
Plyd
On 5/26/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Plyd wrote:
Is there a schedule for the use of semantic mediawiki in wikipedia?
No.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 5/26/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Plyd wrote:
May I ask why?
Why would there be?
I didn't take part in this project and I'm sure they could convince much better than me but...
First, it's very easy to add their relations in the already existing infoboxes (makes relations for all the articles at the same time).
My point of vue : - With semantic, data can be used at different places and defined only once (a bit like openrecord.com, with their views). - It could create automatic lists (example lists of cities sorted by country, by population, etc.). - Relations makes browsing information much easier than with categories. (Example: I'm looking for all english scientists born between 1500 and 1550) - for the wiktionnary it could help classifiying data, and make it easier to present it in the view you like, external or not. - RDF export could help making Wikipedia an online database (as imdb, but for various subjects, and open), that could be used inside other softwares. For example, music showing Wikipedia neutral info, title, singer picture, its discs etc. while playing my mp3, or it could be for a book). Maybe also in a map, with cities etc.
Imho semantic could help spreading wikipedia content (relations but also text) on more supports than the actual website.
Plyd
Plyd wrote:
On 5/26/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
Plyd wrote:
May I ask why?
Why would there be?
I didn't take part in this project and I'm sure they could convince much better than me but...
[snip]
There's thousands of things that we could potentially try to add to the wiki. That doesn't mean there's a schedule for each and every one of them. Most of them will never be tried.
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
On 5/26/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
There's thousands of things that we could potentially try to add to the wiki. That doesn't mean there's a schedule for each and every one of them. Most of them will never be tried.
Is this any sort of discussion process for working out what does and doesn't make it in, or does it come down to existence of a developer willing to implement it, and belief of other developers that the change won't break stuff?
Steve
More the belief that it is needed. The point is not to bloat things and confuse people, which semantic MW does.
On May 26, 2006, at 4:12 AM, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 5/26/06, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
There's thousands of things that we could potentially try to add to the wiki. That doesn't mean there's a schedule for each and every one of them. Most of them will never be tried.
Is this any sort of discussion process for working out what does and doesn't make it in, or does it come down to existence of a developer willing to implement it, and belief of other developers that the change won't break stuff?
Steve _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Fri, May 26, 2006 at 10:39:21AM -0800, Elliott F. Cable wrote:
More the belief that it is needed. The point is not to bloat things and confuse people, which semantic MW does.
The idea of wiki syntax is to be simple. Easy to learn. MediaWiki already includes many features where this does not apply: * table markup * templates * advanced image syntax
The additional changes to the syntax needed for Semantic Mediawiki would make the syntax even more difficult to understand, especially for people who are not aware of semantic markup. Things like
San Diego is a [[is a::city]]. It has a population of [[population:=1300000]].
are not very intuitive any more. Good ideas how to hide the complexity from newbies would be very welcome.
Another problem with SMW is code quality, which currently is not good enough for use at Wikipedia. Scalability has improved with 0.4, but more improvement is still needed.
SMW also needs a security review, looking at the code for a few minutes already showed XSS issues that need to be fixed urgently.
Regards,
jens
On 6/3/06, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
The additional changes to the syntax needed for Semantic Mediawiki would make the syntax even more difficult to understand, especially for people who are not aware of semantic markup. Things like
San Diego is a [[is a::city]]. It has a population of [[population:=1300000]].are not very intuitive any more. Good ideas how to hide the complexity from newbies would be very welcome.
The two specific examples you give could be handled by rigorous use of categories and infoboxes respectively. If all cities belonged to a subcategory of Category:Cities, and all cities had an infobox derived from some {{City infobox}} with a "population" parameter, you would have some "semantic markup" for nothing.
Steve
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 09:19:28AM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
On 6/3/06, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
The additional changes to the syntax needed for Semantic Mediawiki would make the syntax even more difficult to understand, especially for people who are not aware of semantic markup. Things like
San Diego is a [[is a::city]]. It has a population of [[population:=1300000]].are not very intuitive any more. Good ideas how to hide the complexity from newbies would be very welcome.
The two specific examples you give could be handled by rigorous use of categories and infoboxes respectively. If all cities belonged to a subcategory of Category:Cities, and all cities had an infobox derived from some {{City infobox}} with a "population" parameter, you would have some "semantic markup" for nothing.
The category is of only limited use the way it's currently implemented. There is no efficient way to find the sub/supercategory relationships.
And the {{city infoboxes}} aren't a usability improvement at all. Their syntax is even worse. And of course we could put all the information into city infoboxes, but then we could stop writing articles and just create tables. There is more information about a city then the infobox. [[discovered by::Columbus]], [[founded by::Caesar]], [[conquered by::William II.]], ...
Regards,
jens
On 6/3/06, Jens Frank jf@mormo.org wrote:
And the {{city infoboxes}} aren't a usability improvement at all. Their syntax is even worse. And of course we could put all the information into city infoboxes, but then we could stop writing articles and just create tables. There is more information about a city then the infobox. [[discovered by::Columbus]], [[founded by::Caesar]], [[conquered by::William II.]], ...
Can you explain the goals of "semantic markup" a bit further, so I can give a meaningful reply?
Steve
On Sat, Jun 03, 2006 at 07:17:50PM +0200, Steve Bennett wrote:
Can you explain the goals of "semantic markup" a bit further, so I can give a meaningful reply?
I'm not one of the developers of the Semantic Mediawiki extension, but I am a user (most notably on the Bible Wiki at http://bible.tmtm.com/) and for me the two key goals are:
1) Internal queries - being able, for example, to dynamically display a list of all the rulers of Judah in chronological order (http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/King_of_Judah)
2) External queries - the data that is annotated in the text can be retrieved as RDF (http://bible.tmtm.com/wiki/Special:ExportRDF/Rehoboam) which can then be fed into an RDF reasoner. As well as being able to use this data locally, this will become increasingly useful as search engines start to gain the ability to work with structured data rather than just raw text. (See announcement just this week for Pingerati)
Tony
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org