Though it may not be useful to have a "cycle" in an "ontology", I do think we should avoid creating structures that make a "cycle" impossible, and I also believe in supporting more than one ontology. Please note that new articles on the English Wikipedia are "automatically" nominated for deletion when they have zero categories.
2013/5/7, emw <emw.w...@gmail.com>: > "Yes, there is and should be more than one "ontology", and that is > already the case with categories, which are so flexible they can loop > around and become their own grandfather." > > Can someone give an example of where it would be useful to have a cycle in > an ontology? To my knowledge cycles are considered a problem in > categorization, and would be a problem in a large-scaled ontology-based > classification system as well. My impression has been that Wikidata's > ontology would be a directed acyclic graph (DAG) with a single root at > entity <http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q35120> (thing). > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Mathieu Stumpf < > psychosl...@culture-libre.org> wrote: > >> Le 2013-05-06 18:13, Jane Darnell a écrit : >> >> Yes, there is and should be more than one "ontology", and that is >>> already the case with categories, which are so flexible they can loop >>> around and become their own grandfather. >>> >> >> To my mind, categories indeed feet better how we think. I'm not sure >> "grandfather" is a canonical term in such a graph, I think it's simply a >> cycle[1]. >> >> [1] >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Cycle_%28graph_theory%29<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_%28graph_theory%29> >> >> >> Dbpedia complaints should be discussed on that list, I am not a >>> dbpedia user, though I think it's a useful project to have around. >>> >> >> Sorry I didn't want to make off topic messages, nor sound complaining. I >> just wanted to give my feedback, hopefuly a constructive one, on a >> message >> posted on this list. I transfered my message to dbpedia mailing list. >> >> >> >>> Sent from my iPad >>> >>> On May 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt >>> <j...@sahnwaldt.de> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Mathieu, >>>> >>>> I think the DBpedia mailing list is a better place for discussing the >>>> DBpedia ontology: >>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/**lists/listinfo/dbpedia-**discussion<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion> >>>> Drop us a message if you have questions or concerns. I'm sure someone >>>> will answer your questions. I am not an ontology expert, so I'll just >>>> leave it at that. >>>> >>>> JC >>>> >>>> On 6 May 2013 11:01, Mathieu Stumpf <psychosl...@culture-libre.org**> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Le 2013-05-06 00:09, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt a écrit : >>>>> >>>>> On 5 May 2013 20:48, Mathieu Stumpf <psychosl...@culture-libre.org**> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Le dimanche 05 mai 2013 à 16:28 +0200, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt a >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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/<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<https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you maintain several "ontologies" in parallel? Otherwise, how do >>>>>>> you >>>>>>> plane to avoid a "cultural bias", and how do you think it may impact >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> other projects? I mean, if you try to establish "one semantic >>>>>>> hierarchy >>>>>>> to rule them all", couldn't it arise cultural diversity concerns? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> We maintain only one version of the ontology. We have a pretty >>>>>> diverse >>>>>> community, so I hope the editors will take care of that. So far, the >>>>>> ontology does have a Western bias though, more or less like the >>>>>> English Wikipedia or the current list of Wikidata properties. >>>>>> >>>>>> JC >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I can't see how your community could take care of it when they have no >>>>> choice but not contribute at all or contribute to one ontology whose >>>>> structure already defined main axes. To my mind, it's a structural >>>>> bias, you >>>>> can't go out of it without going out of the structure. As far as I >>>>> understand, the current "ontology"[1] you are using is a tree with a >>>>> central >>>>> root, and not a DAG or any other graph. In my humble opinion, if you >>>>> need a >>>>> central element/leaf, it should be precisely >>>>> "ontology"/representation, >>>>> under which one may build several world representation networks, and >>>>> even >>>>> more relations between this networks which would represent how one may >>>>> links >>>>> concepts of different cultures. >>>>> >>>>> To my mind the problem is much more important than with a local >>>>> Wikipedia >>>>> (or other Wikimedia projects). Because each project can expose >>>>> subjects >>>>> through the collective representation of this local community. But >>>>> with >>>>> wikidata central role, isn't there a risk of "short-circuit" this >>>>> local >>>>> expressions? >>>>> >>>>> Also, what is your metric to measure a community diversity? I don't >>>>> want to >>>>> be pessimist, nor to look like I blame the current wikidata community, >>>>> but >>>>> it doesn't seems evident to me that it currently represent human >>>>> diversity. >>>>> I think that there are probably a lot of >>>>> economical/social/educational/ >>>>> **etc >>>>> barriers that may seems like nothing to anyone already involved in the >>>>> wikidata community, but which are gigantic for those >>>>> non-part-of-the-community people. >>>>> >>>>> Now to give my own opinion of the representation/ontology you are >>>>> building, >>>>> I would say that it's based on exactly the opposite premisses I would >>>>> use. >>>>> Wikidata Q1 is universe, then you have earth, life, death and human, >>>>> and it >>>>> seems to me that the ontology you are building have the same >>>>> anthropocentrist bias of the universe. To my mind, should I peak a >>>>> central >>>>> concept to begin with, I would not take universe, but perception, >>>>> because >>>>> perceptions are what is given to you before you even have a concept >>>>> for >>>>> it. >>>>> Even within solipsism you can't deny perceptions (at least as long as >>>>> the >>>>> solipcist pretend to exist, but if she doesn't, who care about the >>>>> opinion >>>>> of a non-existing person :P). Well I wouldn't want to flood this list >>>>> with >>>>> epistemological concerns, but it just to say that even for a someone >>>>> like me >>>>> that you may probably categorise as western-minded, this "ontology" >>>>> looks >>>>> like the opposite of my personal opinion on the matter. I don't say >>>>> that I >>>>> am right and the rest of the community is wrong. I say that I doubt >>>>> that you >>>>> can build an ontology which would fit every cultural represantions >>>>> into >>>>> a >>>>> tree of concepts. But maybe it's not your goal in the first place, so >>>>> you >>>>> may explain me what is your goal then. >>>>> >>>>> [1] I use quotes because it's seems to me that what most IT people >>>>> call >>>>> an >>>>> ontology, is what I would call a representation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l<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<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<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> >>> >> >> -- >> Association Culture-Libre >> http://www.culture-libre.org/ >> >> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l<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
