What about using the W3C Provenance ontology Prov-O? Or has that already
been addressed?
Mike
On 7/14/2020 1:22 PM, Adam Sobieski wrote:
Charles,
For an example, we can refer to the Douglas Adams article
(
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q42). We can see that the statement
that Douglas Adams was a science fiction writer is attributed to the
Bibliothèque nationale de France.
Let us imagine that that statement was not asserted and sourced to the
Bibliothèque nationale de France, but was instead derived from the
combination of facts that he authored works which were science
fiction. Douglas Adams authored the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
pentalogy and those works were science fiction. I am not saying that
that is a valid rule; it is merely an example for this discussion:
authors of science fictions works are science fiction writers.
In the hypothetical, there would be a statement in the knowledgebase
with, instead of a reference, a derivation (statements could, however,
have both sources and derivations). Perhaps, one day, readers will be
able to click on a derivation’s hyperlink on Wikidata to view an
automatically-generated page explaining it.
An automatically-generated natural language article for Q42 might
contain a sentence “Douglas Adams was a science fiction writer” which
would have a numbered citation, but, in the hypothetical, instead of
that citation referring to a referenced material from the Bibliothèque
nationale de France, it would refer to an automatically-generated
document which explained the origin of the statement from automated
reasoning upon component statements, those recursively either asserted
and sourced or the result of automated reasoning.
It is interesting to consider the propagation of sources [1] and/or
derivations [2] from Wikidata knowledgebase statements to citations
for referenced materials or derivations in automatically-generated
articles.
I hope that automated reasoning would not be in tension with standard
Wikipedia policies on original research and synthesis [3]. Perhaps
there would be new policies for reviewing each logical rule desired to
be entered into the knowledgebase. In my opinion, a privileged user
role (e.g. administrator) would be needed for activating and
deactivating proposed logical rules used to produce knowledgebase
statements.
Best regards,
Adam
[1]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources
[2]
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Reasoning
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Reasoning>
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research>
*From: *Charles Matthews via Abstract-Wikipedia
<mailto:abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org>
*Sent: *Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:49 AM
*To: *General public mailing list for the discussion of Abstract
Wikipedia (aka Wikilambda) <mailto:abstract-wikipedia@lists.wikimedia.org>
*Subject: *Re: [Abstract-wikipedia] Wikidata Statement Provenance,
Automated Reasoning, and Natural Language Generation
On 14 July 2020 at 03:11 Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
I
That is, automatically-generated articles could provide reasoning
supporting, arguments for, and/or proofs of the contents of
natural language sentences in a manner similar to how they can
provide referenced sources and materials.
Any thoughts on these topics?
The idea is in tension with standard Wikipedia policies on original
research and synthesis. Admittedly, it would be interesting to see
some edge cases that were/were not acceptable under those policies.
But on the whole, I think work in the sort of symbolic AI tradition
suggested would be better received as research built on top of the
drive to create articles, rather than integrated with it.
Charles
_______________________________________________
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list
Abstract-Wikipedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia
--
Mike Bennett
Hypercube Limited
Level 18, 40 Bank Street (HQ3)
Canary Wharf, London, E14 5NR
Tel 020 7917 9522 Mob. 07721 420 730
Twitter: @MikeHypercube