2013/9/19 Janko Mihelić <[email protected]>: > 2013/9/18 Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> >> >> I think it is a bad idea to connect the meaning of osm tags to definitions >> in wikipedia, because the content of wikipedia articles is not something we >> control. When the wikipedia article changes (e.g. it gets extended or >> restrained by splitting it up) it doesn't imply that the objects with a >> certain tag in osm change nature. > > I agree that can sometimes be a problem, but wikipedia articles about terms > like school, power plant, lake can hardly be changed in meaning. > > Anyway, connection to wikipedia articles is only a small, secondary part of > my proposal. Links between tags themselves is something we have to document > somewhere. We have to have a place where a data consumer sees that > amenity=fastfood is a specific kind of a amenity=restaurant.
...but it isn't! It's a closely-related concept, but to me the concept "fast food place" is not a subcategory of "restaurant". This illustrates, to me, that an attempt to add an ontology on top of the tagging is likely to be vulnerable to the problems it aims to solve. However, it's possible we could start to have a fairly low-key move towards ontology by simply using mediawiki categories. For example if you add [[Category:placestogetameal]] to the wiki pages for fast_food, restaurant, cafe, then it's rather likely that data consumers can use some of the pre-existing mediawiki tools (as used in http://dbpedia.org/ for example) to extract structured data that expresses tags' relations. So if you start with wiki categories you could get fairly far without having to impose a strong ontology. Best Dan _______________________________________________ Tagging mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/tagging
