Guys! You can continue this conversion in a more public place like WD:PC It's bothering for people like me to receive e-mail every five minutes in a topic which I'm not interested So please continue this in a somewhere else
On 5/7/13, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: > What is interesting about categories, is that no matter how shaky the > system is, these are pretty much the only meta data that there is for > articles, because as I said before, just about every article has one. > The weakness of DBpedia is that it is only programmed to pick up > articles with infoboxes, and there just aren't that many of those. > > 2013/5/7, Michael Hale <hale.michael...@live.com>: >> 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 > -- Amir _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
