On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 1:43 AM, Dmitriy Sintsov <ques...@rambler.ru> wrote: > On 09.05.2013 20:28, Brad Jorsch wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:47 PM, James Forrester >> <jforres...@wikimedia.org> wrote: >>> >>> * Pages are implicitly in the parent categories of their explicit >>> categories >>> * -> Pages in <Politicians from the Netherlands> are in <People from the >>> Netherlands by profession> (its first parent) and <People from the >>> Netherlands> (its first parent's parent) and <Politicians> (its second >>> parent) and <People> (its second parent's parent) and … >>> * -> Yes, this poses issues given the sometimes cyclic nature of >>> categories' hierarchies, but this is relatively trivial to code around >> >> Category cycles are the least of it. The fact that the existing >> category hierarchy isn't based on any sensible-for-inference ontology >> is a bigger problem. >> >> Let's consider what would happen to one of my favorite examples on enwiki: >> * The article for Romania is in <Black Sea countries>. Ok. >> * And that category is in <Black Sea>, so Romania is in that too. >> Which is a little strange, but not too bad. >> * And <Black Sea> is in <Seas of Russia> and <Landforms of Ukraine>. >> Huh? Romania doesn't belong in either of those, despite that being >> equivalent to your example where pages in <Politicians from the >> Netherlands> also end up in <People> via <Politicians>. >> >> > There is probably nothing contradictionary in your Black sea category > relation example because "Seas of <country>" implies that <country> has > *multiple* seas, while Romania has only *one* sea border (no offence, there > are lot of small countries and large country does not always means a happy > life). <Landforms of Ukraine> is a little bit more weird, but could be > explained as long and complex area of Crimean peninsula. So, the categories > actually are not so wrong.
I think you misunderstood. The point was that the article on *Romania* would end up in <Seas of Russia> and <Landforms of Ukraine>. OTOH, I missed the part of James's original proposal about creating the whole ontology using this inference system from scratch on Wikidata based on strict is-a relationships. So <Black Sea countries> wouldn't be in <Black Sea> in the Wikidata ontology, because countries aren't the sea. -- Brad Jorsch Software Engineer Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
