Hello,
Concerning the use of owl:sameAs
http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-ref/#IndividualIdentity, it is used in
dbpedia to link for instance http://dbpedia.org/page/Joseph_Hocking to
its equivalent in Freebase, WikiData and Yago. If we refer to your
remark, Markus, this is not an example to follow ?
On 29/05/14 21:04, Andrew Gray wrote:
One other issue to bear in mind: it's *simple* to have properties as a
separate thing. I have been following this discussion with some
interest but... well, I don't think I'm particularly stupid, but most
of it is completely above my head.
Saying here are
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:04 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
wrote:
One other issue to bear in mind: it's *simple* to have properties as a
separate thing. I have been following this discussion with some
interest but... well, I don't think I'm particularly stupid, but most
of it is
And to summarize the answer of the original question to future readers. The
point of properties is:
a) to help humans to better understand Wikidata
b) to help programmers (also humans :P) build the software running it
c) to make a distinction between concepts found in the world and the
concepts
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 10:06 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Do we have an easy way of highlighting a gallery of good examples or even a
plain wikipage of topical guidance? Would be very useful if we could say
'here's a politician, here's a French city, etc'
@David:
I think you should have a look to fuzzy logic
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q224821 :)
2014-05-29 1:48 GMT+02:00 David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com:
Markus,
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Markus Krötzsch
mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
This is an easy question once you have
On 29/05/14 12:41, Thomas Douillard wrote:
@David:
I think you should have a look to fuzzy logic
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q224821:)
Or at probabilistic logic, possibilistic logic, epistemic logic, ...
it's endless. Let's first complete the data we are sure of before we
start to discuss
hehe, maybe some kind inferences can lead to a good heuristic to suggest
properties and values in the entity suggester. As they naturally become
softer and softer by combination of uncertainties, this could also
provide some kind of limits for inferences by fixing a probability below
which we
On 29/05/14 13:53, Thomas Douillard wrote:
hehe, maybe some kind inferences can lead to a good heuristic to suggest
properties and values in the entity suggester. As they naturally become
softer and softer by combination of uncertainties, this could also
provide some kind of limits for
The other answers, under the original subject:
On 29/05/14 01:48, David Cuenca wrote:
Settled :) Let's leave it at defined as a trait of
I don't think it is very clear what the intention of this property is.
What are the limits of its use? What is it meant to do? Can behaviour
really be a
One other issue to bear in mind: it's *simple* to have properties as a
separate thing. I have been following this discussion with some
interest but... well, I don't think I'm particularly stupid, but most
of it is completely above my head.
Saying here are items, here are a set of properties you
Héhé, the Wikidata game suggest it may be a little bit too complicated and
better abstracted away by a three button game for mass contribution :)
2014-05-29 21:04 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk:
One other issue to bear in mind: it's *simple* to have properties as a
separate
Since the very beginning I have kept myself busy with properties, thinking
about which ones fit, which ones are missing to better describe reality,
how integrate into the ones that we have. The thing is that the more I work
with them, the less difference I see with normal items and if soon
Hoi,
In OmegaWiki we made the choice that any defined meaning can be used as a
property. This makes OmegaWiki more like a Wiki than Wikidata were
properties have to be created by fiat. What was found is that people tend
to not abuse this and there is a limited set that is used as properties.
When
Key differences between Properties and Items:
* Properties have a data type, items don't.
* Items have sitelinks, Properties don't.
* Items have Statements, Properties will support Claims (without sources).
The software needs these constraints/guarantees to be able to take shortcuts,
provide
Hi David,
Interesting remark. Let's explore this idea a bit. I will give you two
main reasons why we have properties separate, one practical and one
conceptual.
First the practical point. Certainly, everything that is used as a
property needs to have a datatype, since otherwise the wiki
On 28/05/14 10:37, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Key differences between Properties and Items:
* Properties have a data type, items don't.
* Items have sitelinks, Properties don't.
* Items have Statements, Properties will support Claims (without sources).
The software needs these
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:37 AM, Daniel Kinzler
daniel.kinz...@wikimedia.de wrote:
More fundamentally, they are semantically different: an item describes a
concept
in the real world, while a property is a structural component used for
such a
description.
As I perceive it, a property is a
Am 28.05.2014 11:44, schrieb Markus Krötzsch:
This one point requires a tiny remark: there is no problem in OWL or RDF to
use
the same URI as a property, an individual, and a class in different contexts.
The only thing that OWL (DL) forbids is to use one property for literal values
(like
Markus,
The explanation about the implications of renaming/deleting makes most
sense and just that justifies already the separation in two.
It is equally true that when we create a property, we might have cleaned
the original concept so much that it might differ (even slightly) with the
understood
David,
Regarding the question of how to classify properties and how to relate
them to items:
* same as (in the sense of owl:sameAs) is not the right concept here.
In fact, it has often been discouraged to use this on the Web, since it
has very strong implications: it means that in all uses
On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Markus Krötzsch
mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
David,
Regarding the question of how to classify properties and how to relate them
to items:
* same as (in the sense of owl:sameAs) is not the right concept here. In
fact, it has often been discouraged to
Markus,
Ok, now I understand that same as wouldn't be a good name for the
confusion it would cause. However the property subject of as it is now
wouldn't be a good candidate either. Its meaning is that a certain
statement is represented by another item (that is why it is only allowed to
be used
David,
On 28/05/14 16:35, David Cuenca wrote:
Markus,
Ok, now I understand that same as wouldn't be a good name for the
confusion it would cause. However the property subject of as it is now
wouldn't be a good candidate either. Its meaning is that a certain
statement is represented by another
Markus,
I share your dissatisfaction with part of because that language construct
hides many different conceptual relationships that should be cleared out, I
think we'll have some community discussion work to do in that regard. One
of the uses is: what is the relationship between a human and his
Hi, for the behavior, I would said a behavior may be linked to a
psychological trait.
I's say a behavior is defined by the person having a lot of acts belonging
to a typical class of events.
someone is said to be aggressive if typically when he acts as hostile in
many situations. I remember a
David,
One of the uses is: what is the relationship between a
human and his behavior?
This is an easy question once you have been clear about what human
behaviour is. According to enwiki, it is a range of behaviours
*exhibited by* humans. The bigger question for me is, whether it is
useful
Markus,
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 12:53 AM, Markus Krötzsch
mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
This is an easy question once you have been clear about what human
behaviour is. According to enwiki, it is a range of behaviours *exhibited
by* humans.
Settled :) Let's leave it at defined as a
28 matches
Mail list logo
