Hoi,
So in order to understand all this and participate it is necessary to
submit to the FRENCH Wikipedia.. Why not Thai ?
The mind boggles
Thanks,
GerardM
On 17 October 2015 at 16:42, Thomas Douillard <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
