Le 2013-05-06 11:14, Lydia Pintscher a écrit :
On Mon, May 6, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Mathieu Stumpf psychoslave@culture-libre.org wrote:
Now to give my own opinion of the representation/ontology you are building, I would say that it's based on exactly the opposite premisses I would use. Wikidata Q1 is universe, then you have earth, life, death and human, and it seems to me that the ontology you are building have the same anthropocentrist bias of the universe. To my mind, should I peak a central concept to begin with, I would not take universe, but perception, because perceptions are what is given to you before you even have a concept for it. Even within solipsism you can't deny perceptions (at least as long as the solipcist pretend to exist, but if she doesn't, who care about the opinion of a non-existing person :P). Well I wouldn't want to flood this list with epistemological concerns, but it just to say that even for a someone like me that you may probably categorise as western-minded, this "ontology" looks like the opposite of my personal opinion on the matter. I don't say that I am right and the rest of the community is wrong. I say that I doubt that you can build an ontology which would fit every cultural represantions into a tree of concepts. But maybe it's not your goal in the first place, so you may explain me what is your goal then.
The Q-numbers are randomly assigned (except for a few easter eggs). They have no relation to the importance of the item they represent or its place in any kind of ontology.
Easter eggs are cultural bias. In fact, the term easter egg itself is a western cultural reference. But I think you are missing the point as I was talking mainly about DBpedia ontology, I was just taking this Q-code examples to say that to my mind DBpedia have the same kind of cultural bias. Maybe cultural bias may sound ruder than what I mean, I'm not trying to "blame" anyone, it is clear that I also have my own cultural biases, which I don't pretend to be better or worse than any other.