Sorry, I'm not used to using watchlists to have conversations, but I am used to deleting email threads. My conclusion is that I support any effort to make Wikipedia become more alive, interactive, or otherwise better.
> Date: Tue, 7 May 2013 21:15:14 +0430 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Question about wikipedia categories. > > Guys! > You can continue this conversion in a more public place like WD:PC > It's bothering for people like me to receive e-mail every five minutes > in a topic which I'm not interested > So please continue this in a somewhere else > > On 5/7/13, 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. > > > > 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 > > > > > -- > Amir > > _______________________________________________ > 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
