As far as checking the import progress of Wikidata, the category American women writers has 1479 articles. 651 of them currently have a main type (GND), 328 have a sex, 162 have an occupation, 111 have a country of citizenship, 49 have a sexual orientation, 39 have a place of birth, etc.
> From: j...@sahnwaldt.de > Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 16:28:14 +0200 > To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories. > > Hi Pat, > > I've been involved with DBpedia for several years, so these are > interesting thoughts. > > On 5 May 2013 01:25, Patrick Cassidy <p...@micra.com> wrote: > > If one is interested in a functional “category” system, it would be very > > helpful to have a good logic-based ontology as the backbone. > > > > I haven’t looked recently, but when I inquired about the ontology used by > > DBpedia a year ago, I was referred to “dbpedia-ontology.owl”, an ontology in > > the format of the “semantic web” ontology format OWL. The OWL format is > > excellent for simple purposes, but the dbpedia-ontology.owl (at that time) > > was not well-structured (being very polite). > > Do you mean just the file dbpedia-ontology.owl or the DBpedia ontology > in general? We still use OWL as our main format for publishing the > ontology. The file is generated automatically. Maybe the generation > process could be improved. > > > I did inquire as to who was > > maintaining the ontology, and had a hard time figuring out how to help bring > > it up to professional standards. But it was like punching jello, nothing to > > grasp onto. I gave up, having other useful things to do with my time. > > The ontology is maintained by a community that everyone can join at > http://mappings.dbpedia.org/ . An overview of the current class > hierarchy is here: > http://mappings.dbpedia.org/server/ontology/classes/ . You're more > than welcome to help! I think talk pages are not used enough on the > mappings wiki, so if you have ideas, misgivings or questions about the > DBpedia ontology, the place to go is probably the mailing list: > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion > > Thanks! > > Christopher > > > > > > > > > Perhaps it is time now, with more experience in hand, to rethink the > > category system starting with basics. This is not as hard as it sounds. > > It may require some changes where there is ambiguity or logical > > inconsistency, but mostly it only necessary to link the Wikipedia categories > > to an ontology based on a well-structured and logically sound foundation > > ontology (also referred to as an “upper ontology”), that supplies the basic > > categories and relations. Such an ontology can provide the basic concepts, > > whose labels can be translated into any terminology that any local user > > wants to use. There are several well-structured foundation ontologies, > > based on over twenty years of research, but the one I suggest is the one I > > am most familiar with (which I created over the past seven years), called > > COSMO. The files at http://micra.com/COSMO will provide the ontology itself > > (“COSMO.owl”, in OWL) and papers describing the basic principles. COSMO > > is structured to be a “primitives-based foundation ontology”, containing all > > of the “semantic primitives” needed to describe anything one wants to talk > > about. All other categories are structured as logical combinations of the > > basic elements. Its inventory of primitives is probably incomplete, but is > > able to describe everything I have been concerned with for years (7000 > > categories and 800 relations thus far) can always be supplemented as > > required for new fields. With an OWL ontology, queries can be executed by > > any of several logic-based utilities. Making the query system easy for > > those who prefer not to build SPARQL queries (including myself) would > > require some programming, but that is a miniscule effort compared to what > > has already been put into the DBPedia database. Tools such as “Protégé” > > make it easy to work with an OWL ontology, and there is a web site where an > > OWL ontology can be developed collaboratively. > > > > > > > > I will be willing to put some effort into this and assist anyone who wants > > to used the COSMO ontology for this project. If those who are in charge of > > maintaining the ontology (is anyone?) would like to discuss this at greater > > length, send me an email or telephone me. All those who are interested in > > this topic may also feel free to contact me, or to discuss this thread on > > the list. I suggest the thread title “Foundation Ontology”. > > > > > > > > Pat > > > > > > > > Patrick Cassidy > > > > MICRA Inc. > > > > cass...@micra.com > > > > 908-561-3416 > > > > > > > > From: wikidata-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org > > [mailto:wikidata-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Michael Hale > > Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2013 2:57 AM > > To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories. > > > > > > > > I think it's important to consider the distinction between a category system > > and semantic queries. I think it's very likely that DBpedia and Wikidata > > will converge over time and develop a simple enough query interface that > > causes fewer people to use the category system because we will be able to > > automatically generate relevant queries related to a given article. DBpedia > > currently has a lot more data, but Wikidata is important for many editing > > scenarios. Also, in the future I think there will be a lot of content > > scenarios where it is natural to start by putting data into Wikidata and > > then including it in articles instead of just extracting information from > > articles. If you are familiar with query languages you can get comfortable > > with the DBpedia SPARQL examples in a few minutes, but for a typical reader > > that just wants to go from an article about a person to a list of similar > > people it is hard to beat scrolling down and just clicking on a category. I > > did a test query on DBpedia to plot all sports cars by their engine sizes, > > and I think for the types of things it enables you to do it is totally worth > > the learning curve. That being said, I think the category system has a lot > > of potential for better browsing scenarios as opposed to queries. I've been > > making a tool that mixes the article view data with the category system. You > > can see a video of the basic idea here and a screenshot of football league > > popularity split by language. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Wakebrdkid/Popular_category_browsing I'm > > currently multiplying the Chinese traffic by 30 to try and account for Baidu > > Baike. > > > >> Date: Sat, 4 May 2013 08:14:54 +0200 > >> From: jane...@gmail.com > >> To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories. > >> > >> Wondering exactly the same thing - my frustrations with categories > >> began about three years ago and it seems I am surprised monthly by > >> severe limitations to this outdated apparatus. I am a heavy category > >> user, but I would love to be able to kick it out the door in favour of > >> a more structured method. As far as I can tell, there is very little > >> synchronisation among language Wikipedias of category trees, and being > >> able to apply a central structure to all Wikipedias through Wikidata > >> sounds like a great idea, and one which would not disturb the current > >> category trees we already have, but supplement them. As I see it, some > >> category structures are OK, but when categories get big, people split > >> them in non-standard ways, causing problems like this recent > >> media-hype regarding female novellists. I think that it's great this > >> is in the news in this way, because I am sure that most Wikipedia > >> readers never knew we had categories, and this is a great introduction > >> to them, as well as an invitation to edit Wikipedia. > >> > >> 2013/5/4, Chris Maloney <voldr...@gmail.com>: > >> > I am just curious if there has ever been discussion about the > >> > potential for reimplementing / replacing the category system in > >> > Wikipedia with semantic tagging in WikiData. It seem to me that the > >> > recent kerfuffle with regards to "American women writers" would not > >> > have happened if the pages were tagged with simple RDF assertions > >> > instead of these convoluted categories. I know, of course, that it > >> > would be a huge undertaking, but I just don't see how the category > >> > system can continue to scale (I'm amazed it has scaled as well as it > >> > has already, of course). > >> > > >> > I am trying to learn more about wikidata, and have perused the various > >> > infos and FAQs for the last two hours, and can't find any discussion > >> > of this particular issue. > >> > > >> > -- Chris > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > Wikidata-l mailing list > >> > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > >> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikidata-l mailing list > >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l