Yes, the Provenance ontology is being used by Wikidata and has been so
since pretty much the beginning. The original data model was built on it
and on discussions with members of the Provenance WG.
On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 8:04 PM Adam Sobieski <adamsobieski(a)hotmail.com>
wrote:
Mike,
Thank you for mentioning PROV-O [1][2]; it hadn’t been addressed.
One of the PROV-O editors was Deborah L. McGuinness. She was involved in
both the Inference Web [3] and PML [4].
Best regards,
Adam
[1]
https://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PROV_(Provenance)
[3]
https://web.archive.org/web/20170610061815/http://inference-web.org/wiki/Ma…
<https://web.archive.org/web/20170610061815/http:/inference-web.org/wiki/Main_Page>
[4]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provenance_Markup_Language
*From: *Mike Bennett <mbennett(a)hypercube.co.uk>
*Sent: *Tuesday, July 14, 2020 3:39 PM
*To: *abstract-wikipedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
*Subject: *Re: [Abstract-wikipedia] Wikidata Statement Provenance,
Automated Reasoning, and Natural Language Generation
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
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
*From: *Charles Matthews via Abstract-Wikipedia
<abstract-wikipedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
*Sent: *Tuesday, July 14, 2020 6:49 AM
*To: *General public mailing list for the discussion of Abstract
Wikipedia (aka Wikilambda) <abstract-wikipedia(a)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>
<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
www.hypercube.co.uk
_______________________________________________
Abstract-Wikipedia mailing list
Abstract-Wikipedia(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/abstract-wikipedia