Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Further idea... They were called Mutexes in Freebase and actually lived as part of its data. In fact, you could actually use those same rules in WD if you wanted to. In Freebase, if someone typed or classed a Musical Artist as a fictional character also...they would immediately get a warning in

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Databases use schema but that doesn't mean they make sense for Humans all the time. Rules are typically used to find gaps in the data and the schema. In Freebase, we decided to handle things such as this with Rules (as Peter leans towards), where the community would help with developing them and

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Although there is no formal problem here, care does have to be taken when modelling entities that are to be considered as both classes and non-classes (or, and especially, metaclasses and non-metaclass classes). It is all too easy for even experienced modellers to make mistakes. The problem is

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

I agree with Peter here. Daniel's statement of "Anything that is a subclass of X, and at the same an instance of Y, where Y is not "class", is problematic." is simply too strong. The classical example is Harry the eagle, and eagle being a species. The following paper has a much more measured and

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

On 01/09/2017 07:20 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote: > Am 09.01.2017 um 04:36 schrieb Markus Kroetzsch: >> Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but Wikidata is about >> all >> of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of Iberia" is >> still singular (it is a singular

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hoi, As I said before, there are only office holders. A person is not defined only by the office that he once held. Mr Obama is more than just the incumbent president of the United States. He is not defined by it. Thanks, GerardM On 9 January 2017 at 16:20, Daniel Kinzler

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Am 09.01.2017 um 04:36 schrieb Markus Kroetzsch: > Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but Wikidata is about > all > of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of Iberia" is > still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have its own properties > etc. >

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hoi, My answer is that every past king is not a king but an office holder. For me the name king is just a label; there is no logic in the way it is applied. There are empires where the office holder is called a king for instance... For me they are all monarchs. They are associated with a specific

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

On 09.01.2017 12:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, It is in the logic. When a king is a monarch and a monarch is a politician I am fine. But when people insist that a "King of Iberia" is a subclass it does not make sense. People hold the office of and it is singular. When such things result in

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hoi, It is in the logic. When a king is a monarch and a monarch is a politician I am fine. But when people insist that a "King of Iberia" is a subclass it does not make sense. People hold the office of and it is singular. When such things result in struggles, I think we have a problem. I have

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Gerard, I am willing to help. What do you want explained? (We can perhaps move that off-list.) Med vänliga hälsningar Jan Ainali http://ainali.com 2017-01-08 8:52 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > What I mean and what I say is that there has been noone willing to

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hoi, What I mean and what I say is that there has been noone willing to explain why certain items are in there. When you ask questions it is seen as a threat and consequently I find I am treated like one. The consequence is that I do not care about the structure and totally ignore it. This is a

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Markus Kroetzsch, 08/01/2017 00:12: The subclass of and instance of statements are actually used in very many WDQS queries, often with * expressions to navigate the hierarchy. I think that's what Gerard meant: you don't have to know what's under the hood, as long as it works. When you get

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

On 07.01.2017 15:27, Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, The biggest casualty of the current mess is that people like me do not care at all about it. It cannot be explained, nobody is interested in explaining it and consequently there is little use for it. It is "must have" so it is there.. fine, lets

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hoi, The biggest casualty of the current mess is that people like me do not care at all about it. It cannot be explained, nobody is interested in explaining it and consequently there is little use for it. It is "must have" so it is there.. fine, lets move on. Thanks, GerardM On 7 January

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

On 06.01.2017 18:24, Thomas Douillard wrote: Same entity can be treated both as class and individual This is valid for OWL as well. Yes, and since Wikidata does not feature very powerful ontological statements, you could treat this like in OWL 2 DL semantically as well, i.e., a weak

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

> Same entity can be treated both as class and individual This is valid for OWL as well. 2017-01-05 22:21 GMT+01:00 Stas Malyshev : > Hi! > > > The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata ontology" > would be to > > download all properties and all the

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hi, In case it helps, there is also an a few months old version from the latest DBpedia release for properties [1,2] and classes [3,4]. the properties do not contain the "rdf:type rdf:Property / owl:*Property" definitions and the current dump of the classes contain only subClassOf statements to

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hi! > The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata ontology" would be > to > download all properties and all the items representing classes. We currently > don't have a separate dump for these. Also, do not expect this to be a concise > or consistent model that can be used for

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hi Rüdiger, Daniel refers to several independent aspects of Wikidata: (1) The ontology is not separated from the data. Schematic information is mostly managed by encoding it in data as well. Therefore, if you want some of it (but not the rest), then some extraction will be necessary. The

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Am 04.01.2017 um 11:00 schrieb Léa Lacroix: > Hello, > > You can find it here: http://wikiba.se/ontology-1.0.owl > > If you have questions regarding the ontology, feel free to ask. Please note that this is the *wikibase* ontology, which thefines the meta-model for the information on Wikidata.

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hello, You can find it here: http://wikiba.se/ontology-1.0.owl If you have questions regarding the ontology, feel free to ask. Bests, On 4 January 2017 at 10:42, Klein, Rüdiger < ruediger.kl...@iais.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Is there a way to download the wikidata ontology? > > > > Beste Grüße

[Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Is there a way to download the wikidata ontology? Beste Grüße / kind regards Rüdiger Klein __ Dr. Rüdiger Klein Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems (IAIS) Dept. Adaptive Reflective Teams (ART) Schloss

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Thanks for your answers, Markus. One last question (I hope): What advantage brings the new reification process (using different namespaces instead of {s, v, c, ..} suffixes)? Thanks Jan ___ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Thank you very much! I will try to dig around it a little bit further: 2016-05-01 21:55 GMT+02:00 Stas Malyshev : > That's not the original representation inside Wikibase > (that still has separate elements and can be also seen in the JSON dump) > and not the only RDF

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Thanks for reply. 2016-05-02 7:19 GMT+02:00 Markus Kroetzsch : > To be honest, I had not expected this to be of much importance for many > users at the time, but if there is interest in us updating our dumps to the > new format, we can certainly do this in the

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

Hi! > If geo-coordinates use WKT in Wikidata (which I can't see anywhere > there), does it mean, that the original idea of /{latitude, longitude, > altitude, precision, globe}/ format was abandoned? Coordinates are WKT in the RDF output of Wikidata, when represented as single literal. That's

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Jan Macura wrote: > > I've been using the namespace for > datatype properties for some time (more than a year). > Now I can see everywhere only the ns. > Was there some reason for

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

On 01.05.2016 01:34, Jan Macura wrote: Hi all I've been using the namespace for datatype properties for some time (more than a year). Now I can see everywhere only the ns. Was there some reason for change? Are these two somehow