On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 7:40 PM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote:
> What is interesting about categories, is that no matter how shaky the > system is, these are pretty much the only meta data that there is for > articles, because as I said before, just about every article has one. > The weakness of DBpedia is that it is only programmed to pick up > articles with infoboxes, and there just aren't that many of those. > That is not true actually. DBpedia picks up (almost) everything except from talk & user pages > > 2013/5/7, Michael Hale <[email protected]>: > > Pardon the spam, but it is only 2000 categories. Four steps would be > 25000. > > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 12:10:51 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories. > > > > > > > > > > I spoke too soon. That is the only loop at two steps. But if you go out > > three steps (25000 categories) you find another 23 loops. Organizational > > studies <-> organizations, housing -> household behavior and family > > economics -> home -> housing, religious pluralism <-> religious > persecution, > > secularism <-> religious pluralism, learning -> inductive reasoning -> > > scientific theories -> sociological theories -> social systems -> > society -> > > education -> learning, etc. > > > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 11:31:24 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories. > > > > > > > > > > I don't know if these are useful, but if we go two steps from the > > fundamental categories on the English Wikipedia we find several loops. > > Knowledge contains information and information contains knowledge, for > > example. Not allowing loops might force you to have to give different > ranks > > to two categories that are equally important. > > > > Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 16:41:45 +0200 > > From: [email protected] > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Am 07.05.2013 14:01, schrieb emw: > > > > > > > > "Yes, there is and should be more than one > > "ontology", and that is > > > > already the case with categories, which are so flexible they can > > loop > > > > around and become their own grandfather." > > > > > > > > Can someone give an example of where it would be useful to have > > a cycle in an ontology? > > > > > > > > Navigation! How else are you going to find back where you came from > > ;) > > > > Wikipieda categories were invented originally for navigation, > > right? Cycles are not soo bad, then... > > > > Now we live in a new era. > > > > -- Sebastian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To my knowledge cycles are considered a problem in > > categorization, and would be a problem in a large-scaled > > ontology-based classification system as well. My impression has > > been that Wikidata's ontology would be a directed acyclic graph > > (DAG) with a single root at entity (thing). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 3:03 AM, Mathieu > > Stumpf <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Le > > 2013-05-06 18:13, Jane Darnell a écrit : > > > > > > > > Yes, there is and should be more than one "ontology", > > and that is > > > > already the case with categories, which are so flexible > > they can loop > > > > around and become their own grandfather. > > > > > > > > > > > > To my mind, categories indeed feet better how we think. I'm > > not sure "grandfather" is a canonical term in such a graph, > > I think it's simply a cycle[1]. > > > > > > > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycle_%28graph_theory%29 > > > > > > > > > > > > Dbpedia complaints should be discussed on that list, I > > am not a > > > > dbpedia user, though I think it's a useful project to > > have around. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry I didn't want to make off topic messages, nor sound > > complaining. I just wanted to give my feedback, hopefuly a > > constructive one, on a message posted on this list. I > > transfered my message to dbpedia mailing list. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my iPad > > > > > > > > On May 6, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Jona Christopher > > Sahnwaldt <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Mathieu, > > > > > > > > I think the DBpedia mailing list is a better place > > for discussing the > > > > DBpedia ontology: > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion > > > > Drop us a message if you have questions or concerns. > > I'm sure someone > > > > will answer your questions. I am not an ontology > > expert, so I'll just > > > > leave it at that. > > > > > > > > JC > > > > > > > > On 6 May 2013 11:01, Mathieu Stumpf > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > Le 2013-05-06 00:09, Jona Christopher Sahnwaldt a > > écrit : > > > > > > > > > > On 5 May 2013 20:48, Mathieu Stumpf > > <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Le dimanche 05 mai 2013 à 16:28 +0200, Jona > > Christopher Sahnwaldt a > > > > > > > > > > The ontology is maintained by a community > > that everyone can join at > > > > http://mappings.dbpedia.org/ > > . An overview of the current class > > > > hierarchy is here: > > > > > > http://mappings.dbpedia.org/server/ontology/classes/ > > . You're more > > > > than welcome to help! I think talk pages are > > not used enough on the > > > > mappings wiki, so if you have ideas, > > misgivings or questions about the > > > > DBpedia ontology, the place to go is > > probably the mailing list: > > > > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dbpedia-discussion > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you maintain several "ontologies" in > > parallel? Otherwise, how do you > > > > plane to avoid a "cultural bias", and how do > > you think it may impact the > > > > other projects? I mean, if you try to > > establish "one semantic hierarchy > > > > to rule them all", couldn't it arise cultural > > diversity concerns? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > We maintain only one version of the ontology. We > > have a pretty diverse > > > > community, so I hope the editors will take care > > of that. So far, the > > > > ontology does have a Western bias though, more > > or less like the > > > > English Wikipedia or the current list of > > Wikidata properties. > > > > > > > > JC > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can't see how your community could take care of > > it when they have no > > > > choice but not contribute at all or contribute to > > one ontology whose > > > > structure already defined main axes. To my mind, > > it's a structural bias, you > > > > can't go out of it without going out of the > > structure. As far as I > > > > understand, the current "ontology"[1] you are > > using is a tree with a central > > > > root, and not a DAG or any other graph. In my > > humble opinion, if you need a > > > > central element/leaf, it should be precisely > > "ontology"/representation, > > > > under which one may build several world > > representation networks, and even > > > > more relations between this networks which would > > represent how one may links > > > > concepts of different cultures. > > > > > > > > To my mind the problem is much more important than > > with a local Wikipedia > > > > (or other Wikimedia projects). Because each > > project can expose subjects > > > > through the collective representation of this > > local community. But with > > > > wikidata central role, isn't there a risk of > > "short-circuit" this local > > > > expressions? > > > > > > > > Also, what is your metric to measure a community > > diversity? I don't want to > > > > be pessimist, nor to look like I blame the current > > wikidata community, but > > > > it doesn't seems evident to me that it currently > > represent human diversity. > > > > I think that there are probably a lot of > > economical/social/educational/etc > > > > barriers that may seems like nothing to anyone > > already involved in the > > > > wikidata community, but which are gigantic for > > those > > > > non-part-of-the-community people. > > > > > > > > Now to give my own opinion of the > > representation/ontology you are building, > > > > I would say that it's based on exactly the > > opposite premisses I would use. > > > > Wikidata Q1 is universe, then you have earth, > > life, death and human, and it > > > > seems to me that the ontology you are building > > have the same > > > > anthropocentrist bias of the universe. To my mind, > > should I peak a central > > > > concept to begin with, I would not take universe, > > but perception, because > > > > perceptions are what is given to you before you > > even have a concept for it. > > > > Even within solipsism you can't deny perceptions > > (at least as long as the > > > > solipcist pretend to exist, but if she doesn't, > > who care about the opinion > > > > of a non-existing person :P). Well I wouldn't want > > to flood this list with > > > > epistemological concerns, but it just to say that > > even for a someone like me > > > > that you may probably categorise as > > western-minded, this "ontology" looks > > > > like the opposite of my personal opinion on the > > matter. I don't say that I > > > > am right and the rest of the community is wrong. I > > say that I doubt that you > > > > can build an ontology which would fit every > > cultural represantions into a > > > > tree of concepts. But maybe it's not your goal in > > the first place, so you > > > > may explain me what is your goal then. > > > > > > > > [1] I use quotes because it's seems to me that > > what most IT people call an > > > > ontology, is what I would call a representation. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Association Culture-Libre > > > > http://www.culture-libre.org/ > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Dipl. Inf. Sebastian Hellmann > > > > Department of Computer Science, University of Leipzig > > > > Events: NLP & DBpedia 2013 > > (http://nlp-dbpedia2013.blogs.aksw.org, Deadline: *July 8th*) > > > > Venha para a Alemanha como PhD: > > http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/csf > > > > Projects: http://nlp2rdf.org , http://linguistics.okfn.org , > > http://dbpedia.org/Wiktionary , http://dbpedia.org > > > > Homepage: http://bis.informatik.uni-leipzig.de/SebastianHellmann > > > > Research Group: http://aksw.org > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > -- Kontokostas Dimitris
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
