Oops, I meant https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Classification of course. We made the page translatable even if it's not an accepted policy, at least it's well founded and solid.
2015-10-17 17:06 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
