Hi Christopher and Michael, Thanks for the replies. My comments were based on the OWL ontology for DBpedia_3.8.owl. I will look at the references that you provided and prepare a more detailed discussion. Some urgent business has arisen requiring my attention for a day or two.
Pat Patrick Cassidy MICRA Inc. cass...@micra.com 908-561-3416 > -----Original Message----- > From: wikidata-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikidata-l- > boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt > Sent: Sunday, May 05, 2013 10:28 AM > To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project. > 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