Yes, you're touching exactly on the problems I had during the evaluation - I couldn't even figure out what DBpedia is. Thanks, your help will be very much appreciated.
OK, I will send a link the week after the next, and then we can start working on it :) I am very much looking forward to it. On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:11 AM Sebastian Hellmann < hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote: > Na, I am quite open, albeit impulsive. The information given was quite > good and some of my concerns regarding the involvement of Google were also > lifted or relativized. Mainly due to the fact that there seems to be a > sense of awareness. > > I am just studying economic principles, which are very powerful. I also > have the feeling that free and open stuff just got a lot more commercial > and I am still struggling with myself whether this is good or not. Also > whether DBpedia should become frenemies with BigTech. Or funny things like > many funding agencies try to push for national sustainability options, but > most of the time, they suggest to use the GitHub Platform. Wikibase could > be an option here. > > I have to apologize for the Knowledge Graph Talk thing. I was a bit > grumpy, because I thought I wasted a lot of time on the Talk page that > could have been invested in making the article better (WP:BE_BOLD style), > but now I think, it might have been my own mistake. So apologies for > lashing out there. > > (see comments below) > On 20.09.19 17:53, Denny Vrandečić wrote: > > Sebastian, > > "I don't want to facilitate conspiracy theories, but ..." > "[I am] interested in what is the truth behind the truth" > > I am sorry, I truly am, but this *is* the language I know from conspiracy > theorists. And given that, I cannot imagine that there is anything I can > say that could convince you otherwise. Therefore there is no real point for > me in engaging with this conversation on these terms, I cannot see how it > would turn constructive. > > The answers to many of your questions are public and on the record. Others > tried to point you to them (thanks), but you dismiss them as not fitting > your narrative. > > So here's a suggestion, which I think might be much more constructive and > forward-looking: > > I have been working on a comparison of DBpedia, Wikidata, and Freebase > (and since you've read my thesis, you know that's a thing I know a bit > about). Simple evaluation, coverage, correctness, nothing dramatically > fancy. But I am torn about publishing it, because, d'oh, people may (with > good reasons) dismiss it as being biased. And truth be told - the simple > fact that I don't know DBpedia as well as I know Wikidata and Freebase > might indeed have lead to errors, mistakes, and stuff I missed in the > evaluation. But you know what would help? > > You. > > My suggestion is that I publish my current draft, and then you and me work > together on it, publically, in the open, until we reach a state we both > consider correct enough for publication. > > What do you think? > > Sure, we are doing statistics at the moment as well. It is a bit hard to > define what DBpedia is nowadays as we are rebranding the remixed datasets, > now that we can pick up links and other data from the Databus. It might not > even be a real dataset anymore, but glue between datasets focusing on the > speed of integration and ease of quality improvement. Also still working on > the concrete Sync Targets for GlobalFactSync ( > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/DBpedia/GlobalFactSyncRE) > as well. > > One question I have is whether Wikidata is effective/efficient or where it > is effective and where it could use improvement as a chance for > collaboration. > > So yes any time. > > -- Sebastian > > > Cheers, > Denny > > P.S.: I am travelling the next week, so I may ask for patience > > > On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:11 AM Thad Guidry <thadgui...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Thank you for sharing your opinions, Sebastian. >> >> Cheers, >> Thad >> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Sebastian Hellmann < >> hellm...@informatik.uni-leipzig.de> wrote: >> >>> Hi Thad, >>> On 20.09.19 15:28, Thad Guidry wrote: >>> >>> With my tech evangelist hat on... >>> >>> Google's philanthropy is nearly boundless when it comes to the promotion >>> of knowledge. Why? Because indeed it's in their best interest otherwise no >>> one can prosper without knowledge. They aggregate knowledge for the >>> benefit of mankind, and then make a profit through advertising ... all >>> while making that knowledge extremely easy to be found for the world. >>> >>> >>> I am neither pro-Google or anti-Google per se. Maybe skeptical and >>> interested in what is the truth behind the truth. Google is not synonym to >>> philanthropy. Wikimedia is or at least I think they are doing many things >>> right. Google is a platform, so primarily they "aggregate knowledge for >>> their benefit" while creating enough incentives in form of accessibility >>> for users to add the user's knowledge to theirs. It is not about what >>> Google offers, but what it takes in return. 20% of employees time is also >>> an investment in the skill of the employee, a Google asset called Human >>> Capital and also leads to me and Denny from Google discussing whether >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Graph is content marketing >>> or knowledge (@Denny: no offense, legit arguments, but no agenda to resolve >>> the stalled discussion there). Except I don't have 20% time to straighten >>> the view into what I believe would be neutral, so pushing it becomes a >>> resource issue. >>> >>> I found the other replies much more realistic and the perspective is yet >>> unclear. Maybe Mozilla wasn't so much frenemy with Google and got removed >>> from the browser market for it. I am also thinking about Linked Open Data. >>> Decentralisation is quite weak, individually. I guess spreading all the >>> Wikibases around to super-nodes is helpful unless it prevents the formation >>> of a stronger lobby of philanthropists or competition to BigTech. Wikidata >>> created some pressure on DBpedia as well (also opportunities), but we are >>> fine since we can simply innovate. Others might not withstand. Microsoft >>> seems to favor OpenStreetMaps so I am just asking to which degree Open >>> Source and Open Data is being instrumentalised by BigTech. >>> >>> Hence my question, whether it is compromise or be removed. (Note that >>> states are also platforms, which measure value in GDP and make laws and >>> roads and take VAT on transactions. Sometimes, they even don't remove >>> opposition.) >>> >>> -- >>> All the best, >>> Sebastian Hellmann >>> >>> Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies (KILT) >>> Competence Center >>> at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig University >>> Executive Director of the DBpedia Association >>> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://nlp2rdf.org, >>> http://linguistics.okfn.org, https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt >>> <http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt> >>> Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann >>> Research Group: http://aksw.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >> > -- > All the best, > Sebastian Hellmann > > Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies (KILT) > Competence Center > at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig University > Executive Director of the DBpedia Association > Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://nlp2rdf.org, > http://linguistics.okfn.org, https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt > <http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt> > Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann > Research Group: http://aksw.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
