Hi, I fully agree on the usefulness of this mapping.
Out of 5311 properties, only 232 have equivalents in other schemes <https://query.wikidata.org/#%23list%20of%20properties%20in%20Wikidata%20with%20their%20type%20and%20their%20equivalent%20in%20other%20ontologies%0A%0ASELECT%20DISTINCT%20%3Fproperty%20%3FpropertyLabel%20%3FpropertyDescription%20%3FpropertyType%20%0A%28GROUP_CONCAT%28DISTINCT%20%3FequivalentProp%3Bseparator%3D%22%3B%20%22%29%20as%20%3FequivalentProps%29%0A%0AWHERE%0A%7B%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fproperty%20rdf%3Atype%20wikibase%3AProperty%20.%0A%20%20%20%20%3Fproperty%20wikibase%3ApropertyType%20%3FpropertyType%20.%0A%20%20%20%20OPTIONAL%20%7B%3Fproperty%20wdt%3AP1628%20%20%3FequivalentProp%20.%7D%0A%20%20%20%20SERVICE%20wikibase%3Alabel%20%7B%20bd%3AserviceParam%20wikibase%3Alanguage%20%22en%22%20%7D%09%0A%20%20%0A%7D%20GROUP%20BY%20%3Fproperty%20%3FpropertyLabel%20%3FpropertyDescription%20%3FpropertyType%20> (although the many external ids are special cases since they are equivalent to some kind of owl:sameAs.) If I can help in this job, I'm interested. Cheers, Ettore Rizza On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 at 13:29, Maarten Dammers <maar...@mdammers.nl> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Last week I presented Wikidata at the Semantics conference in Vienna ( > https://2018.semantics.cc/ ). One question I asked people was: What is > keeping you from using Wikidata? One of the common responses is that > it's quite hard to combine Wikidata with the rest of the semantic web. > We have our own private ontology that's a bit on an island. Most of our > triples are in our own private format and not available in a more > generic, more widely use ontology. > > Let's pick an example: Claude Lussan. No clue who he is, but my bot > seems to have added some links and the item isn't too big. Our URI is > http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729 and this is equivalent of > http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396 and > http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 . If you look at > http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729.rdf this equivalence is > represented as: > <wdtn:P214 rdf:resource="http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396"/> > <wdtn:P1006 rdf:resource="http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 > "/> > > Also outputting it in a more generic way would probably make using it > easier than it is right now. Last discussion about this was at > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1921 , but no response > since June. > > That's one way of linking up, but another way is using equivalent > property ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 ) and equivalent > class ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1709 ). See for example > sex or gender ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21) how it's > mapped to other ontologies. This won't produce easier RDF, but some > smart downstream users have figured out some SPARQL queries. So linking > up our properties and classes to other ontologies will make using our > data easier. This is a first step. Maybe it will be used in the future > to generate more RDF, maybe not and we'll just document the SPARQL > approach properly. > > The equivalent property and equivalent class are used, but not that > much. Did anyone already try a structured approach with reporting? I'm > considering parsing popular ontology descriptions and producing reports > of what is linked to what so it's easy to make missing links, but I > don't want to do double work here. > > What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of the > ones I came across: > * https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html > * http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ > * http://schema.org/ > * https://creativecommons.org/ns > * http://dbpedia.org/ontology/ > * http://vocab.org/open/ > Any suggestions? > > Maarten > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
