Yes, that's exactly what I want. Let's say you have an ontology based on People and you have an ontology based on Places and when you intersect them for the geolocated coordinates of your handheld smartphone, you get the homes or other timed-event-locations of famous people through the centuries near where you are standing. This user-scenario assumes of course that you are standing in a Wikipedia-rich landscape somewhere in the Western world...
2013/5/9, Michael Hale hale.michael.jr@live.com:
My only concern is that tags make me think of Twitter. They have prolific tagging but don't use it to form a category system. We already have categories for people, prayer, and stained glass. It seems that you really want a page that lets you view the contents of not just one category, but from multiple categories connected with "and", "or", and "not".
Date: Thu, 9 May 2013 12:05:02 +0200 From: jane023@gmail.com To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories.
I think it is a perfectly good and noble ambition to strive for "a logically sound ontology as contrasted with a controlled terminology". I just don't believe it is attainable. Perhaps you could build it by including all existing non-compatible ontologies. I had an interesting conversation about tagging last month, in which it was stated that enough tagging could cause new ontologies to appear through organic growth. I find that an interesting concept. Our Wikipedia category tree structures are being built vertically and horizontally around a few main categories like "Category:People" that slowly get split off into subcategories such as "Category:People praying on stained glass windows" as they get too large, whereas a tagging system could lead to the formation of new categories for which there is no parent category (as yet).