[Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings?

[Peter Patel-Schneider]

It is a bit unclear what the policy of this mailing list is.  All that
I can find is from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Mailing_list

1. Wikidata - Discussion list for the Wikidata project.

This doesn't provide much guidance.


Before determining the policy for CfPs it appears to me that there
should be a better determination of what posts are acceptable and
unacceptable in general.

My view is that posts to the mailing list should have a connection to
Wikidata.  This would include, for example, CfPs for venues that are
about Wikidata or that cover Wikidata.  (So WikidataCon is in; HIS'21
is out; NaBIC 2021 is out; IAS 2021 is out; the JWS special issue on
community-based KBs and KGs is in; IBICA'21 is out.)  I would not
require that venues are free access (as that would rule out almost
every conference). 

But who is going to bell this cat?


peter



On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 12:56 +0200, Luca Martinelli [Sannita] wrote:
> Back on point, please.
> 
> In regards to calls for papers, do we want to ban them altogether, to
> set standards to allow some of them, or leave them be as they are now?
> 
> L.

___
Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings?

[Peter Patel-Schneider]

On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 13:41 +0300, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Il 19/09/21 13:10, Peter Patel-Schneider ha scritto:
> > "In accordance with funding body requirements, Elsevier does
> > offer alternative open access publishing options. Visit our open
> > access
> > page for full information."
> 
> I did read it, and it says "This journal has an embargo period of 24 
> months". Of course one can just ignore such abusive requests and
> archive 
> anyway under a cc-by license the so-called preprint, which will be 99 %
> the same thing, but authors may not know that. Advertising such
> journals 
> on this mailing list might be appropriate if the poster explains how to
> ignore abusive requests from the publisher.

Also from
https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-web-semantics/1570-8268/open-access-options

  Details on gold open access articles
  User rights

  All articles published gold open access will be immediately and 
  permanently free for everyone to read and download. 

It thus appears to me that there is no embargo for these papers.

My understanding, although this should be confirmed with the journal,
is that anyone can pay the open access fee and then the published
version of their paper will open access immediately upon publication. 
It further appears to me that authors funded by a funder that
subscribes to Plan S principles will have their funder pay the free.

> 
> In the specific case, some exceptions are admitted by the publisher
> for 
> Plan S compliance but only to certain authors funded by certain
> funders. 
> The result is a very complicated situation 
> <https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/id/publication/14154> and a very low open 
> access rate of some 20 % <https://link.lens.org/y11mtZdDtHg>. I don't
> mean to single out JWS as particularly egregious: this is typical of 
> most venues controlled by closed access publishers (including ACM,
> IEEE 
> etc.). I only mentioned JWS because it was recently advertised on
> this 
> list (and Wiktionary-l).

I see that the v2.sherpa.ac.uk page indicates that submitted versions
of paper have no restrictions applied by the journal.  It appears to me
that this allows authors of any paper in the journal to make their
paper available under terms that satify the Wikidata goals, even to the
point of making the version available under a CC0 license.\

> I don't see any benefit in using Wikimedia properties to advertise 
> for-profit endeavours which are clearly incompatible with the
> Wikimedia 
> mission and values, as well as Wikidata's very reason of existence.
> The 
> anti-OA venues usually have enough marketing power to get known
> without 
> our help.

My point here is not to defend the publisher of the journal but to
argue that the journal might not be "bad".

peter


___
Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

[Wikidata] Re: Change list policy for call for papers postings?

[Peter Patel-Schneider]

On Sun, 2021-09-19 at 12:17 +0300, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

[...]

> The Wikidata community also can't benefit from those publications
> unless 
> they're made (libre) open access, so I think it would be fair to
> require 
> all the papers will be OA (preferably) or explaining how the authors
> can 
> archive them (for free) under a free license (libre green OA) à la:
> https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy/
> https://cyber.harvard.edu/hoap/How_to_make_your_own_work_open_access

I think this is too strong.  There is no reason that the Wikidata
community cannot benefit from publications in venues that are not open
access.  Of course open access makes publications more accessible and
more in line with Wikidata goals but to my mind a publication that is
not open access can provide a benefit to the Wikidata community.

>  From a search  it's easy to find 
> good and bad examples. Bad is
> e.g.https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-web-semantics/1570-8268/guide-for-authors
> >
> (claims embargos and all sorts of restrictions), rather good is e.g. 
>  
> ( states CC-BY).

I think that you should have searched further and found out more about
the open access policy of the Journal of Web Semantics.  In
https://www.elsevier.com/journals/journal-of-web-semantics/1570-8268/open-access-options
there is "In accordance with funding body requirements, Elsevier does
offer alternative open access publishing options. Visit our open access
page for full information."

> Federico

peter

___
Wikidata mailing list -- wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
To unsubscribe send an email to wikidata-le...@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata

[Peter Patel-Schneider]

Indeed.   Thanks for the example.  I'll probably incorporate it in my 
talk at WikidataCon.



As far as I know there is no general method for nudging towards 
consensus for cases like these.  The onus appears to me to be on whoever 
is entering the information to look for similar situations and model 
them all the same.  (In this case it appears that a recent change to the 
Nobel Peace Prize was made to remove it being a subclass of Nobel Prize, 
actually reducing commonality.)


But what can be done in the future?  One way to go is to ask that 
editors be more careful when editing items that might belong to a group, 
and try to model them the same as other members of the group.  Another 
way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that 
have parts/instances/subclasses and check that all the other items are 
modeled the same way.


I prefer something similar to the second way, where editors of classes 
and properties (or just about anything that is going to be the common 
target of a property, but instance and subclass and subproperty seem to 
me to be the most important such properties) are asked to be careful to 
specify the relationship between the class or property and the other 
items that target it.  So whoever does major editing on Nobel Prize 
should add a comment on the relationship between the various Nobel 
Prizes and Nobel Prize. (Having such information is quite common for 
concepts in Cyc.)


Actually Nobel Prize isn't the greatest example for my preference 
because there doesn't seem to be any Wikidata items for the even the 
famous Nobel Prizes.   Suppose there was a Wikidata item for Einstein's 
Nobel Prize in Physics.  Then its relationship to Nobel Prize would 
provide guidance for the relationship between the Nobel Prize in Physics 
and Nobel Prizes itself.



I find modeling deficiencies like this in lots of places in Wikidata.  
That's not a severe problem if you have the resources of Google to throw 
at curating Wikidata information.  But if you don't have this level of 
resources available for curating Wikidata information then these sorts 
of infelicities are a significant barrier to using Wikidata.



Peter F. Patel-Schneider



On 9/27/19 12:34 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote:

Hey all,

Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it 
reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL 
query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.


What I ended up with was:

SELECT ?winner
WHERE {
  ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize .
  ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 .
}


More specifically, looking into the data I found:

Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637)
 part of (P361)
  Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922)
 subclass of (P279)
  Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170)
 instance of (P31)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
 part of (P361)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585)
 instance of (P31)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
 part of (P361)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104)
 subclass of (P31)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
 part of (P361)
   Nobel Prize (Q7191) .

In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different 
properties are used in five different combinations to state that they 
"are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)


Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of 
P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and 
similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general 
problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.


What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination 
thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in 
Wikidata?


What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?

Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different 
viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?


(Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been 
with the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what 
is being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to 
foster consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)


Best,
Aidan

___
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