Hi: Why did you use exact match (P2888) instead of equivalent class (P1709) and equivalent property (P1628)?
peter On 9/22/18 5:07 AM, Andra Waagmeester wrote: > Hi Maarten, > > We are actively mapping to other ontologies using the exact match P2888 > property. The disease ontology is one example which is actively > synchronized in Wikidata using the exact match property (P2888). This property > is inspired by the SKOS:exact match property. SKOS it self had more mapping > properties and I think it is a good idea to introduce some of the other SKOS > mapping properties in Wikidata such broad match and narrow match. > > Andra > > On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:30 AM Maarten Dammers <maar...@mdammers.nl > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 > _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
