You're right, I tend to think having a metaclass for types of deaseases would be useful, really.
Please submit your suggestions and correction on https://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Help%3AClassification&title=Sp%C3%A9cial%3ARecherche&go=Lire :) There is an opened RfC on adopting such basic classification basic principles things as an help page : https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Adopt_Help:Classification_as_an_official_help_page 2015-10-17 16:25 GMT+02:00 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <[email protected]> : > On 10/17/2015 12:55 AM, Thomas Douillard wrote: > >> I was a bit surprised to see class reasoning used on diseases. > > > > I was not aware of that, do you have links ? > > See slide 38 of > http://www.slideshare.net/_Emw/an-ambitious-wikidata-tutorial > > >> I was a bit surprised to see class reasoning used on diseases. > >> This depends on a particular modelling methodology. > > > > It's not surprising as the meaning of properties is community defined > (or sub > > community defined) so any community can use reasoning technology they > want to > > use as which is consistent with the intended meaning of properties. As > > Wikidata do only stores statements anyone can use reasoning technologies > on > > top of this that are community accepted. The drawback of this approach > have > > been discussed on another thread some days ago : it could become tricky > to > > understand for a simple user the path that lead to a statement addition > and we > > have to be careful to always provide informations on which bot added > inferred > > statements with that reasoning technology or rule from which data. > > What is the community-defined meaning of subclass of and diseases then? > > Here is what I see in Wikidata. > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q128581 breast cancer > has a > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P279 subclass of > link to both > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12136 disease > and > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q18556617 thoracic cancer > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P279 subclass of > is linked via > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 equivalent property > to > http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf > which is the subclass relationship between classes. > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P279 subclass of > has English description > all of these items are instances of those items; this item is a class of > that > item. Not to be confused with Property:P31 (instance of). > which is rather confusing, but appears to be gloss of the RDFS meaning of > http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf > > Someone looking at all this is thus lead to believe that > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P279 subclass of > is the same as the RDFS meaning of > http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#subClassOf > > So diseases are classes. They then have instances. They can be reasoned > with > using techniques borrowed from RDFS. > > This is a particular modelling methodology. It has its benefits. It > requires > a certain view of disease and diseases. The particular instantiation of > this > modelling methodology, where there is a redundant link to the top of the > disease hierarchy and that top loops back to itself, has its own benefits > and > drawbacks. > > > A bigger problem than the one you state, I think, is how outsiders can > determine that this modelling methodology is in place and understand it > adequately to effectively use the information or to contribute more > information. There is nothing on the discussion pages for the various > diseases that I looked at. > > > The modelling methodology used here is useful in many other places, > including > human occupations, creative work genres, cuisines, and sports. Is > Wikidata > uniform in applying this methodology? If this is not the case, then how is > the use of this methodology signalled? > > > I however noticed in heated recent debates that some users on frwiki were > > sensible to the argument that Wikidata only does store statements. This > kind > > of users feared that Wikidata would induce an alignment of semantics of > words > > and items to the enwiki semantic, They believes in the linguistic > hypothesis > > that words in a language carry some kind of language dependant meaning on > > their own and feared some kind of "cultural contagion" by some kind of > > mechanism where the specific meaning of english word would contaminate > the > > french word. It has of course been said many time that Wikidata was not > > focused on words and linguistic but on definitions mainly, and that one > > definition equals one item, that wikidata was the sum of all knowledge, > but > > the argument that finally seemed to be effective was the one that > Wikidata do > > only store statements and do not einforce constraint. It seems to be > effective > > to convince them that Wikidata is indeed POV agnostic. > > In my discussion above, I tried to stay away from using the human-language > descriptions, preferring an external formal definition. Unfortunately, > Wikidata does not have an internal formal definition beyond the simple > description of the data structures. This lack, I think, is what makes the > human-language descriptions so important in Wikidata. My view is that a > stronger formal basis for Wikidata would help to reduce the possibility > that > descriptions in dominant human languages do indeed push out the other > descriptions. > > > > > 2015-10-16 19:14 GMT+02:00 Peter F. Patel-Schneider < > [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > > It's very pleasant to hear from someone else who thinks of Wikidata > as a > > knowledge base (or at least hopes that Wikidata can be considered as > a > > knowledge base). Did you get any pushback on this or on your stated > Wikidata > > goal of structuring the sum of all human knowledge? > > > > Did you get any pushback on your section on classification in > Wikidata? It > > seems to me that some of that is rather controversial in the Wikidata > > community. I was a bit surprised to see class reasoning used on > diseases. > > This depends on a particular modelling methodology. > > > > peter > > > > > > On 10/12/2015 11:47 AM, Emw wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > > > On Saturday, I facilitated a workshop at the U.S. National > Archives entitled > > > "An Ambitious Wikidata Tutorial" as part of WikiConference USA > 2015. > > > > > > Slides are available at: > > > http://www.slideshare.net/_Emw/an-ambitious-wikidata-tutorial > > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:An_Ambitious_Wikidata_Tutorial.pdf > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
