Pardon the spam, but it is only 2000 categories. Four steps would be 25000.

From: hale.michael...@live.com
To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 12:10:51 -0400
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories.




I spoke too soon. That is the only loop at two steps. But if you go out three 
steps (25000 categories) you find another 23 loops. Organizational studies <-> 
organizations, housing -> household behavior and family economics -> home -> 
housing, religious pluralism <-> religious persecution, secularism <-> 
religious pluralism, learning -> inductive reasoning -> scientific theories -> 
sociological theories -> social systems -> society -> education -> learning, 
etc.

From: hale.michael...@live.com
To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 11:31:24 -0400
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories.




I don't know if these are useful, but if we go two steps from the fundamental 
categories on the English Wikipedia we find several loops. Knowledge contains 
information and information contains knowledge, for example. Not allowing loops 
might force you to have to give different ranks to two categories that are 
equally important.

Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:41:45 +0200
From: hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de
To: wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories.


  
    
  
  
    Am 07.05.2013 14:01, schrieb emw:

    
    
      "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?  
    
    

    Navigation! How else are you going to find back where you came from
    ;)

    Wikipieda categories were invented originally for navigation,
    right?  Cycles are not soo bad, then...

    Now we live in a new era.

    -- Sebastian

    

    

    
      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 (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
            

              

              
                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

                    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/
                            . 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

                          
                          

                          

                          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

                    
                    

                    _______________________________________________

                    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

                
                

              
            
            
                -- 

                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

              
            
          
        
        

      
      

      
      

      _______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

    
    

    

    -- 

      Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann

      Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig 

      Events: NLP & DBpedia 2013
      (http://nlp-dbpedia2013.blogs.aksw.org, Deadline: *July 8th*)

      Venha para a Alemanha como PhD:
      http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/csf

      Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://linguistics.okfn.org ,
      http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary , http://dbpedia.org

      Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann

      Research Group: http://aksw.org

    
  


_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to