Dimitris Kontokostas> we made some different design choices and map wikidata data directly into the DBpedia ontology.
I’m very interested in this. A simple example: bgwiki started keeping Place Hierarchy in Wikidata because it’s much less efficient to keep it in deeply nested subtemplates. This made it very hard for bgdbpedia to extract this info, because how do you mix e.g. dbo:partOf and wd:Pnnn? So this is a logical continuation of the first step, which was for DBpedia to source inter-language links (owl:sameAs) from WD. (I haven’t tracked the list in a while, could someone give me a link to such dump? Sorry) Tom Morris> abandoned critical thinking and assumed DBpedia was dead now that we had WikiData That’s quite false. Both have their strengths and weaknesses. - DBpedia has much more info than Wikidata. For Chrissake, Wikidata doesn’t even have category>article assignments! - Wikidata has more entities (true, "stubs"), a lot of them created for coreferencing (authority control) purposes. IMHO there’s a bit of a revolution in this domain, check out https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Authority_control https://twitter.com/hashtag/coreferencing https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/ VIAF is moving to Wikidata coreferencing, which will get them double the name forms, 300k orgs and 700k persons. This is Big Deal to any library of museum hack. - Wikidata has easier access to labels. In DBpedia you have to do a wikiPageRedirects dance, and if you’re naïve you’ll assume “God Does Not Play Dice” is another name for Einstein - Right now IMHO Wikidata has better direct types for persons. This is a shame and we need to fix it in DBpedia > without thinking about how the two could evolve / compete / cooperate / > thrive. We exactly have to think about this. Last few months I've been worrying that the two communities don't much talk to each other. We as humanity should leverage the strengths of both, to gain maximum benefits. I've become active in both communities, and I feel no shame in such split loyalies. :-) I went to DBpedia Dublin, now'll go to GlamWiki Hague... It's structured data each way! Some little incoherencies: - The DBpedia Extraction framework is a very ingenious thing, and the devs working on it are very smart. But can they compete with a thousand Wikidata bot writers? (plus Magnus who in my mind holds semi-God status) - Meanwhile, DBpedia can't muster a willing Wikipedia hack to service mappings.dbpedia.org, which is stuck in the stone age. - Wikidatians move around tons of data every day, but their understanding of RDF *as a community* is still a bit naïve. - DBpedia holds tons of structured data, but Wikidata seems to plan to source it by individual bot contributions... maybe in full in 5 years time? - DBpedia has grokked the black magic of dealing with hand-written *multilingual* units and conversions. Of a gazillion units http://mappings.dbpedia.org/index.php/DBpedia_Datatypes Last I looked, Wikidata folks shrugged this off with "too different from our data types" - https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/ is a crowdsourcing Wonder upon God's Earth, but nary a DBpedian has heard of it IMHO A Little Cooperation Goes a Long Way. Cheers! _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
