There's a related essay on Wikimedia Commons: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Multichill/Next_generation_categories .
The Wikidata properties instance of<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P31>(formerly "is a") and subclass of <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P279> are likely relevant to folks interested in ontology building on Wikidata. They're based on rdfs:type <http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_type> and rdfs:subClassOf<http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_subclassof>from W3C recommendations, and allow for building a rooted DAG that places concepts into a hierarchy of knowledge. They also allow for a degree of type-token distinction <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type%E2%80%93token_distinction>when classifying subjects, though how that applies to certain knowledge domains hasn't been fully sussed out. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:17 PM, Chris Maloney <voldr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Doug from WikiSource started a page over at meta: > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Beyond_categories > > I'll be trying to fill in some of my understanding of the problem and > the scope of a possible solution. I recognize there's been a lot of > prior art on this issue, and a lot of existing overlapping tools and > infrastructure, and I'm pretty new around here, and apt to be > inaccurate and naive. So I do hope others with more experience will > come and help sort it out. > > Chris > > On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:06 AM, Michael Hale <hale.michael...@live.com> > wrote: > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
