Re: [Wikidata] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia in an abstract language

[Luca Martinelli]

Wow! Please share the slides or the video! I'm interested too.

L.

Il sab 29 set 2018, 20:43 Pine W  ha scritto:

> Forwarding because this (ambitious!) proposal may be of interest to people
> on other lists. I'm not endorsing the proposal at this time, but I'm
> curious about it.
>
> Pine
> ( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )
>
>
> -- Forwarded message -
> From: Denny Vrandečić 
> Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:32 PM
> Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia in an abstract language
> To: Wikimedia Mailing List 
>
>
> Semantic Web languages allow to express ontologies and knowledge bases in a
> way meant to be particularly amenable to the Web. Ontologies formalize the
> shared understanding of a domain. But the most expressive and widespread
> languages that we know of are human natural languages, and the largest
> knowledge base we have is the wealth of text written in human languages.
>
> We looks for a path to bridge the gap between knowledge representation
> languages such as OWL and human natural languages such as English. We
> propose a project to simultaneously expose that gap, allow to collaborate
> on closing it, make progress widely visible, and is highly attractive and
> valuable in its own right: a Wikipedia written in an abstract language to
> be rendered into any natural language on request. This would make current
> Wikipedia editors about 100x more productive, and increase the content of
> Wikipedia by 10x. For billions of users this will unlock knowledge they
> currently do not have access to.
>
> My first talk on this topic will be on October 10, 2018, 16:45-17:00, at
> the Asilomar in Monterey, CA during the Blue Sky track of ISWC. My second,
> longer talk on the topic will be at the DL workshop in Tempe, AZ, October
> 27-29. Comments are very welcome as I prepare the slides and the talk.
>
> Link to the paper: http://simia.net/download/abstractwikipedia.pdf
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

[Wikidata] Fwd: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia in an abstract language

[Pine W]

Forwarding because this (ambitious!) proposal may be of interest to people
on other lists. I'm not endorsing the proposal at this time, but I'm
curious about it.

Pine
( https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Pine )


-- Forwarded message -
From: Denny Vrandečić 
Date: Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 6:32 PM
Subject: [Wikimedia-l] Wikipedia in an abstract language
To: Wikimedia Mailing List 


Semantic Web languages allow to express ontologies and knowledge bases in a
way meant to be particularly amenable to the Web. Ontologies formalize the
shared understanding of a domain. But the most expressive and widespread
languages that we know of are human natural languages, and the largest
knowledge base we have is the wealth of text written in human languages.

We looks for a path to bridge the gap between knowledge representation
languages such as OWL and human natural languages such as English. We
propose a project to simultaneously expose that gap, allow to collaborate
on closing it, make progress widely visible, and is highly attractive and
valuable in its own right: a Wikipedia written in an abstract language to
be rendered into any natural language on request. This would make current
Wikipedia editors about 100x more productive, and increase the content of
Wikipedia by 10x. For billions of users this will unlock knowledge they
currently do not have access to.

My first talk on this topic will be on October 10, 2018, 16:45-17:00, at
the Asilomar in Monterey, CA during the Blue Sky track of ISWC. My second,
longer talk on the topic will be at the DL workshop in Tempe, AZ, October
27-29. Comments are very welcome as I prepare the slides and the talk.

Link to the paper: http://simia.net/download/abstractwikipedia.pdf

Cheers,
Denny
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Semantic annotation of red links on Wikipedia

[Maarten Dammers]

New property proposed at 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Wikipedia_suggested_article_name



On 28-09-18 11:27, Lucie-Aimée Kaffee wrote:
The idea of linking red links is very interesting, I believe, 
especially as we have Wikidata items to many of the missing articles.
We discussed the concept of "smart red links" (linking to the 
ArticlePlaceholder pages, as someone pointed out before) a while ago, 
documented at 
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArticlePlaceholder/Smart_red_links


I believe it's a very interesting direction to explore, especially for 
Wikipedias with a smaller amount of articles and therefore naturally a 
higher amount of red links.


On Thu, 27 Sep 2018 at 21:06, Maarten Dammers > wrote:


Hello,

On 27-09-18 01:16, Andy Mabbett wrote:
> On 24 September 2018 at 18:48, Maarten Dammers
mailto:maar...@mdammers.nl>> wrote:
>
>> Wouldn't it be nice to be able to make a connection between the
red link on
>> Wikipedia and the Wikidata item?
> This facility already exists:
>
>

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Interlanguage_link#Link_to_Reasonator_and_Wikidata
You seem to have done some selective quoting and selective reading. I
addressed this in my original email:

On 24-09-18 19:48, Maarten Dammers wrote:
> Where to store this link? I'm not sure about that. On some
Wikipedia's
> people have tested with local templates around the red links.
That's
> not structured data, clutters up the Wikitext, it doesn't scale and
> the local communities generally don't seem to like the approach.
> That's not the way to go.
James also shared some links related to this.

Maarten




___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata



--
Lucie-Aimée Kaffee
Web and Internet Science Group
School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata considered unable to support hierarchical search in Structured Data for Commons

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
There is also the age old conundrum where some want to enforce their rules
for the good all all because (argument of the day follows).

First of all, Wikidata is very much a child of Wikipedia. It has its own
structures and people have endeavoured to build those same structures in
Wikidata never mind that it is a very different medium and never mind that
there are 280+ Wikipedias that might consider things to be different.  The
start of Wikidata was also an auspicious occasion where it was thought to
be OK to adopt an external German authority. That proved to be a disaster
and there are still residues of this awful decision. It took not long to
show the short comings of this schedule and it was replaced by something
more sensible.

However, we got something really Wiki and it was all too wild. It took not
long for me to ask for someone to explain the current structures and nobody
volunteered. So I did what I do best, I largely ignored the results of the
classes and subclasses. It does not work for me. It works against me so me
current strategy is to ignore this nonsense and concentrate on including
data. The reason is simple; once data is included, it is easy to slice it
and dice it.structure it as we see fit at a later date.

So when our priority becomes to make our data reusable, more open we should
agree on it. So far we have not because we choose to fight each other. Some
have ideas, some have invested too much in what we have at this time. When
we are to make our data reusable, we should agree on what it is exactly we
aim to achieve. Is it to support Commons, it is to support some external
standard that is academically sound. I would always favour what is
practical and easily measured.

I would support Commons first. It has the benefit that it will bring our
communities together in a clear objective. It has the benefit that changes
in the operations of Wikidata support the whole of the Wikimedia universe
and consequentially financial, technical and operational needs and
investments are easily understood. It also means that all the bureaucracy
that has materialised will show to be in the way when it is.

So my question is not if we are a Wiki, my question is are we a Wiki enough
and willing to change our way for our own good.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 16:38, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> Ettore,
>
> Wikidata has the ability of crowdsourcing...unfortunately, it is not
> effectively utilized.
>
> Its because Wikidata does not yet provide a voting feature on
> statements...where as the vote gets higher...more resistance to change the
> statement is required.
> But that breaks the notion of a "wiki" for some folks.
> And there we circle back to Gerard's age old question of ... should
> Wikidata really be considered a wiki at all for the benefit of society ?
> or should it apply voting/resistance to keep it tidy, factual and less
> messy.
>
> We have the technology to implement voting/resistance on statements.  I
> personally would utilize that feature and many others probably would as
> well.  Crowdsourcing the low voted facts back to applications like
> OpenRefine, or the recently sent out Survey vote mechanism for spam
> analysis on the low voted statements could highlight where things are
> untidy and implement vote casting to clean them up.
>
> "...the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and it should be
> dismantled if that burden cannot be met..."
>
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry 
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 2:49 AM Ettore RIZZA 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The Wikidata's ontology is a mess, and I do not see how it could be
>> otherwise. While the creation of new properties is controlled, any fool can
>> decide that a woman is no longer a
>> human or is part of family. Maybe I'm a fool too? I wanted to remove the
>> claim that a ship  is an instance
>> of "ship type" because it produces weird circular inferences in my
>> application; but maybe that makes sense to someone else.
>>
>> There will never be a universal ontology on which everyone agrees. I
>> wonder (sorry to think aloud) if Wikidata should not rather facilitate the
>> use of external classifications. Many external ids are knowledge
>> organization systems (ontologies, thesauri, classifications ...) I dream of
>> a simple query that could search, in Wikidata, "all elements of the same
>> class as 'poodle' according to the classification of imagenet
>> .
>>
>> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata considered unable to support hierarchical search in Structured Data for Commons

[Ettore RIZZA]

Hi Thad,

I understand that an open Wiki has its advantages and disadvantages (I
sometimes prefer a system like StackOverflow, where you need a certain
reputation to do some things). I am afraid that a voting system simply
favors the opinions shared by the majority of Wikidata editors, namely a
Western worldview. And even within this subgroup opinions may legitimately
differ.

But there may be ways to avoid messing up the ontology while respecting the
wiki spirit. For example, a warning pop-up every time you edit an
ontological property (P31, P279, P361...). Something like: "OK, you added
the statement "a poodle is an instance of toy". Do you agree with the fact
that poodle is now a goods, a work, an artificial physical object? "

But that would only work for manual edits...

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 16:38, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> Ettore,
>
> Wikidata has the ability of crowdsourcing...unfortunately, it is not
> effectively utilized.
>
> Its because Wikidata does not yet provide a voting feature on
> statements...where as the vote gets higher...more resistance to change the
> statement is required.
> But that breaks the notion of a "wiki" for some folks.
> And there we circle back to Gerard's age old question of ... should
> Wikidata really be considered a wiki at all for the benefit of society ?
> or should it apply voting/resistance to keep it tidy, factual and less
> messy.
>
> We have the technology to implement voting/resistance on statements.  I
> personally would utilize that feature and many others probably would as
> well.  Crowdsourcing the low voted facts back to applications like
> OpenRefine, or the recently sent out Survey vote mechanism for spam
> analysis on the low voted statements could highlight where things are
> untidy and implement vote casting to clean them up.
>
> "...the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and it should be
> dismantled if that burden cannot be met..."
>
> -Thad
> +ThadGuidry 
>
>
> On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 2:49 AM Ettore RIZZA 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The Wikidata's ontology is a mess, and I do not see how it could be
>> otherwise. While the creation of new properties is controlled, any fool can
>> decide that a woman is no longer a
>> human or is part of family. Maybe I'm a fool too? I wanted to remove the
>> claim that a ship  is an instance
>> of "ship type" because it produces weird circular inferences in my
>> application; but maybe that makes sense to someone else.
>>
>> There will never be a universal ontology on which everyone agrees. I
>> wonder (sorry to think aloud) if Wikidata should not rather facilitate the
>> use of external classifications. Many external ids are knowledge
>> organization systems (ontologies, thesauri, classifications ...) I dream of
>> a simple query that could search, in Wikidata, "all elements of the same
>> class as 'poodle' according to the classification of imagenet
>> .
>>
>> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Looking for "data quality check" bots

[Ettore RIZZA]

Hi Maarten,

Thank you very much for your answer and your pointers. The page (which I
did not know existed) containing a federated SPARQL query is definitely
close to what I mean. It just misses one more step: deciding who is right.
If we look at the first result of the table
 of
mismatches (Dmitry Bortniansky ) and
we draw a little graph, the result is:

[image: Diagram.png]

We can see that the error comes (probably) from Viaf, which contains a
duplicate, and from NTA, which obviously created an authority based on this
bad Viaf ID.

My research is very close to this kind of case, and I am very interested to
know what is already implemented in Wikidata.

Cheers,

Ettore Rizza

On Sat, 29 Sep 2018 at 13:03, Maarten Dammers  wrote:

> Hi Ettore,
>
>
> On 26-09-18 14:31, Ettore RIZZA wrote:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > I'm looking for Wikidata bots that perform accuracy audits. For
> > example, comparing the birth dates of persons with the same date
> > indicated in databases linked to the item by an external-id.
> Let's have a look at the evolution of automated editing. The first step
> is to add missing data from anywhere. Bots importing date of birth are
> an example of this. The next step is to add data from somewhere with a
> source or add sources to existing unsourced or badly sourced statements.
> As far as I can see that's where we are right now, see for example edits
> like
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q41264&type=revision&diff=619653838&oldid=616277912
> is . Of course the next step would be to be able to compare existing
> sourced statements with external data to find differences. But how would
> the work flow be? Take for example Johannes Vermeer (
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q41264 ). Extremely well documented and
> researched, but
>
> http://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=&role=&nation=&subjectid=500032927
> and https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/artists/80476 combined provide 3 different
> dates of birth and 3 different dates of death. When it comes to these
> kind of date mismatches, it's generally first come, first served (first
> date added doesn't get replaced). This mismatch could show up in some
> report. I can check it as a human and maybe do some adjustments, but how
> would I sign it of to prevent other people from doing the same thing
> over and over again?
>
> With federated SPARQL queries it becomes much easier to generate reports
> of mismatches. See for example
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1006/Mismatches .
>
> Maarten
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata considered unable to support hierarchical search in Structured Data for Commons

[Thad Guidry]

Ettore,

Wikidata has the ability of crowdsourcing...unfortunately, it is not
effectively utilized.

Its because Wikidata does not yet provide a voting feature on
statements...where as the vote gets higher...more resistance to change the
statement is required.
But that breaks the notion of a "wiki" for some folks.
And there we circle back to Gerard's age old question of ... should
Wikidata really be considered a wiki at all for the benefit of society ?
or should it apply voting/resistance to keep it tidy, factual and less
messy.

We have the technology to implement voting/resistance on statements.  I
personally would utilize that feature and many others probably would as
well.  Crowdsourcing the low voted facts back to applications like
OpenRefine, or the recently sent out Survey vote mechanism for spam
analysis on the low voted statements could highlight where things are
untidy and implement vote casting to clean them up.

"...the burden of proof has to be placed on authority, and it should be
dismantled if that burden cannot be met..."

-Thad
+ThadGuidry 


On Sat, Sep 29, 2018 at 2:49 AM Ettore RIZZA  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> The Wikidata's ontology is a mess, and I do not see how it could be
> otherwise. While the creation of new properties is controlled, any fool can
> decide that a woman is no longer a
> human or is part of family. Maybe I'm a fool too? I wanted to remove the
> claim that a ship  is an instance
> of "ship type" because it produces weird circular inferences in my
> application; but maybe that makes sense to someone else.
>
> There will never be a universal ontology on which everyone agrees. I
> wonder (sorry to think aloud) if Wikidata should not rather facilitate the
> use of external classifications. Many external ids are knowledge
> organization systems (ontologies, thesauri, classifications ...) I dream of
> a simple query that could search, in Wikidata, "all elements of the same
> class as 'poodle' according to the classification of imagenet
> .
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Looking for "data quality check" bots

[Maarten Dammers]

Hi Ettore,


On 26-09-18 14:31, Ettore RIZZA wrote:

Dear all,

I'm looking for Wikidata bots that perform accuracy audits. For 
example, comparing the birth dates of persons with the same date 
indicated in databases linked to the item by an external-id.
Let's have a look at the evolution of automated editing. The first step 
is to add missing data from anywhere. Bots importing date of birth are 
an example of this. The next step is to add data from somewhere with a 
source or add sources to existing unsourced or badly sourced statements. 
As far as I can see that's where we are right now, see for example edits 
like 
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q41264&type=revision&diff=619653838&oldid=616277912 
is . Of course the next step would be to be able to compare existing 
sourced statements with external data to find differences. But how would 
the work flow be? Take for example Johannes Vermeer ( 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q41264 ). Extremely well documented and 
researched, but 
http://www.getty.edu/vow/ULANFullDisplay?find=&role=&nation=&subjectid=500032927 
and https://rkd.nl/nl/explore/artists/80476 combined provide 3 different 
dates of birth and 3 different dates of death. When it comes to these 
kind of date mismatches, it's generally first come, first served (first 
date added doesn't get replaced). This mismatch could show up in some 
report. I can check it as a human and maybe do some adjustments, but how 
would I sign it of to prevent other people from doing the same thing 
over and over again?


With federated SPARQL queries it becomes much easier to generate reports 
of mismatches. See for example 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1006/Mismatches .


Maarten

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata considered unable to support hierarchical search in Structured Data for Commons

[Ettore RIZZA]

Hi,

The Wikidata's ontology is a mess, and I do not see how it could be
otherwise. While the creation of new properties is controlled, any fool can
decide that a woman is no longer a
human or is part of family. Maybe I'm a fool too? I wanted to remove the
claim that a ship  is an instance of
"ship type" because it produces weird circular inferences in my
application; but maybe that makes sense to someone else.

There will never be a universal ontology on which everyone agrees. I wonder
(sorry to think aloud) if Wikidata should not rather facilitate the use of
external classifications. Many external ids are knowledge organization
systems (ontologies, thesauri, classifications ...) I dream of a simple
query that could search, in Wikidata, "all elements of the same class as
'poodle' according to the classification of imagenet
.

On Fri, 28 Sep 2018 at 04:42, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> James,
>
> It looks like a lot of that phabricator issue was around Taxons ?  For the
> Poodle to show a class of Mammal...
>
> Seems like many of these could be answered if someone responded to
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Danyaljj on their last question about
> if an "OR" could be used with linktype with gas:service ... where no one
> gave an answer to their final question comment here:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Request_a_query/Archive/2017/01#Timeout_when_finding_distance_between_two_entities
>
> I tried myself to answer that question and find either Parent Taxon OR
> Subclass of a Poodle, but couldn't seem to pull it off using gas:service
> and 1 hour of trial and error in many forms, even duplicating the program
> twice ...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yb7wfpwh
>
> #defaultView:Graph
> PREFIX gas: 
>
> SELECT ?item ?itemLabel
> WHERE {
>   SERVICE gas:service {
> gas:program gas:gasClass "com.bigdata.rdf.graph.analytics.SSSP" ;
> gas:in wd:Q38904 ;
> gas:traversalDirection "Forward" ;
> gas:out ?item ;
> gas:out1 ?depth ;
> gas:maxIterations 10 ;
> gas:linkType wdt:P279 .
>   }
>   SERVICE gas:service {
> gas:program gas:gasClass "com.bigdata.rdf.graph.analytics.SSSP" ;
> gas:in wd:Q38904 ;
> gas:traversalDirection "Forward" ;
> gas:out ?item ;
> gas:out1 ?depth ;
> gas:maxIterations 10 ;
> gas:linkType wdt:P171 .
>   }
>
>   SERVICE wikibase:label {bd:serviceParam wikibase:language
> "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en" }
> }
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 5:24 PM Stas Malyshev 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > Apparently the Wikidata hierarchies were simply too complicated, too
>> > unpredictable, and too arbitrary and inconsistent in their design across
>> > different subject areas to be readily assimilated (before one even
>> > starts on the density of bugs and glitches that then undermine them).
>>
>> The main problem is that there is no standard way (or even defined small
>> number of ways) to get the hierarchy that is relevant for "depicts" from
>> current Wikidata data. It may even be that for a specific type or class
>> the hierarchy is well defined, but the sheer number of different ways it
>> is done in different areas is overwhelming and ill-suited for automatic
>> processing. Of course things like "is "cat" a common name of an animal
>> or a taxon and which one of these will be used in depicts" adds
>> complexity too.
>>
>> One way of solving it is to create a special hierarchy for "depicts"
>> purposes that would serve this particular use case. Another way is to
>> amend existing hierarchies and meta-hierarchies so that there would be
>> an algorithmic way of navigating them in a common case. This is
>> something that would be nice to hear about from people that are
>> experienced in ontology creation and maintenance.
>>
>> > to be chosen that then need to be applied consistently?  Is this
>> > something the community can do, or is some more active direction going
>> > to need to be applied?
>>
>> I think this is very much something that the community can do.
>>
>> --
>> Stas Malyshev
>> smalys...@wikimedia.org
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata