Hi Phillip,
Are you aware of the Wikidata RDF exports at
http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/ ? Do they meet your
requirements for now or do you need something different? If you have
specific plans for the RDF, I would be curious to learn about them.
Cheers,
Markus
On 29.10.2014 19:41, Phillip Rhodes wrote:
FWIW, put me in the camp of "people who want to see wikidata available
via RDF" as well. I won't argue that RDF needs to be the *native*
format for Wikidata, but I think it would be a crying shame for such a
large knowledgebase to be cut off from seamless integration with the
rest of the LinkedData world.
That said, I don't really care if RDF/SPARQL support come later and
are treated as an "add on", but I do think Wikidata should at least
have that as a goal for "eventually". And if I can help make that
happen, I'll try to pitch in however I can. I have some experiments
I'm doing now, working on some new approaches to scaling RDF
triplestores, so using the Wikidata data may be an interesting testbed
for that down the road.
And on a related note - and apologies if this has been discussed to
death, but I haven't been on the list since the beginning - but I am
curious if there is any formal collaboration
(in-place|proposed|possible) between dbpedia and wikidata?
Phil
This message optimized for indexing by NSA PRISM
On Wed, Oct 29, 2014 at 2:34 PM, Markus Krötzsch
<mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:
Martynas,
Denny is right. You could set up a Virtuoso endpoint based on our RDF
exports. This would be quite nice to have. That's one important reason why
we created the exports, and I really hope we will soon see this happening.
We are dealing here with a very large project, and the decision for or
against a technology is not just a matter of our personal preference. If RDF
can demonstrate added value, then there will surely be resources to further
extend the support for it. So far, we are in the lead: we provide close to
one billion (!) triples Wikidata knowledge to the world. So far, there is no
known use of this data. We need to go step by step: some support from us,
some practical usage from the RDF community, some more support from us, ...
In reply to your initial email, Martynas, I have to say that you seem to
have very little knowledge about what is going on in Wikidata. If you would
follow the development reports more closely, you would know that most of the
work is going into components that RDF does not replace at all. Querying
with SPARQL is nice, but we are still more focussed on UI issues, history
management, infrastructure integration (such as pushing changes to other
sites), and many more things which are completely unrelated to RDF in every
way. Your suggestion that a single file format would somehow magically make
the construction of one of the world-largest community-edited knowledge
bases a piece of cake is just naive.
Now don't get me wrong: naive thinking has it's place in Wikidata -- it's
always naive to try what others consider impossible -- but it should be
combined with some positive, forward thinking attitude. I hope that our
challenge to show the power of RDF to us can unleash some positive energies
in you :-) I am looking forward to your results (and happy to help if you
need some more details about the RDF dumps etc.).
Best wishes,
Markus
On 29.10.2014 18:26, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
Martynas,
since we had this discussion on this list previously, and again I am
irked by your claim that we could just use standard RDF tools out of the
box for Wikidata.
I will shut up and concede that you are right if you manage to set up a
standard open source RDF tool on an open source stack that contains the
Wikidata knowledge base, is keeping up to date with the rate of changes
that we have, and is able to answer queries from the public without
choking and dying for 24 hours, before this year is over. Announce a few
days in advance on this list when you will make the experiment.
Technology has advanced by three years since we made the decision not to
use standard RDF tools, so I am sure it should be much easier today. But
last time I talked with people writing such tools, they were rather
cautious due to our requirements.
We still wouldn't have proven that it could deal with the expected QPS
Wikidata will have, but heck, I would be surprised and I would admit
that I was wrong with my decision if you can do that.
Seriously, we did not snub RDF and SPARQL because we don't like it or
don't know it. We decided against it *because* we know it so well and we
realized it does not fulfill our requirements.
Cheers,
Denny
On Mon Oct 27 2014 at 6:47:05 PM Martynas Jusevičius
<marty...@graphity.org <mailto:marty...@graphity.org>> wrote:
Hey all,
so I see there is some work being done on mapping Wikidata data model
to RDF [1].
Just a thought: what if you actually used RDF and Wikidata's concepts
modeled in it right from the start? And used standard RDF tools, APIs,
query language (SPARQL) instead of building the whole thing from
scratch?
Is it just me or was this decision really a colossal waste of
resources?
[1] http://korrekt.org/papers/__Wikidata-RDF-export-2014.pdf
<http://korrekt.org/papers/Wikidata-RDF-export-2014.pdf>
Martynas
http://graphityhq.com
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
