On Fri, Aug 23, 2013 at 5:53 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>wrote:
> > I have been blogging a lot the last two days with DBpedia in mind. My > understanding is that at DBpedia a lot of effort went into making something > of a cohesive model of properties. Now that the "main type GND" is about to > be deleted, it makes sense to adopt much of the work that has been done at > DBpedia. > > The benefits are: > > - we will get access to academically reviewed data structures > - we do not have to wait and ponder and get in to thebusiness > enriching the data content of DBpedia > - we can easily compare the data in DBpedia and Wikidata > - more importantly, DBpedia has spend effort in connecting to other > resources > > Yes, we can import data from DBpedia and we can import data from > Wikipedia. Actually we can do both. The one thing that needs to be > considered is that we need data before we can curate it. With more data > available it becomes more relevant to invest time in tools that compare > data. We can start doing this now and, over time this will become more > relevant. But now we need more properties and the associated date. > I think reviewing existing ontologies/schemas like DBpedia (or Freebase) with an eye towards reusing them or incorporating pieces of them makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't take them wholesale without review though. Importing data from DBpedia, I'd be much more wary of. It can vary greatly in quality depending on how it was generated. I'd much rather see WikiData take Freebase's approach of quality over quantity and let coverage improve over time. Tom
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
