This sounds very similar to the Authority Control elements, which are
tightly controlled.
Is there a related template being used in Wikipedia cf. {{Authority
control}}?
It seems logical to use Database name = value, unless I am not
understanding?
This would be great for other specific data sets, as well. Much more
query-able, too, if they are their own subset?
Erika
*Erika Herzog*
Wikipedia *User:BrillLyle <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:BrillLyle>*
On Wed, Aug 17, 2016 at 2:03 PM, Benjamin Good <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Perhaps it would be more productive if I give a very specific example.
> (I'd prefer a general, wikidata-wide policy but it sounds like that isn't
> going to happen.)
>
> We are working on integrating wikidata with many of the ontologies that
> are part of the OBO Foundry [1]. These include, for example, the Gene
> Ontology and the Disease Ontology. Bringing the concepts represented in
> these ontologies in as items in wikidata makes it possible to author claims
> that capture knowledge about the relationships between, for example, genes,
> biological processes, diseases, and drugs. These claims are thus far
> mostly drawn from associated public databases. They serve to populate
> infoboxes on Wikipedias and, we hope, will also help foster the growth of
> new applications that can help to capture more knowledge for re-use by the
> wikidata community. Importantly, these imports also bind the wikidata
> community here to the community of biomedical researchers over there.
> Establishing a coherent pattern for binding the concepts in these
> ontologies to the corresponding items in wikidata is important for two key
> reasons:
>
> (1) The ontologies and other linked data resources that use them have a
> lot of data that is never likely to get into wikidata and vice versa.
> Establishing clear mappings makes it possible to integrate that knowledge
> (mostly) automatically. (AKA the whole idea of the semantic web...). The
> more consistent the pattern of mapping, the more automation is possible.
>
> (2) It is vitally important to the maintainers of these resources to be
> able to track usage of their work products. The more an ontology that is
> funded for the purpose of supporting research and knowledge dissemination
> can show that it is being used, the better the argument to continue its
> funding. When negotiating the import of knowledge products into a CC0
> world, it is important that we can demonstrate that the items will
> generally remain connected as well as give indications about how they are
> being used. (Accepting of course that with CC0 there is no guarantee.)
>
> Given that context, would you support the proposal of using the exact
> match property to bind this specific set of biomedical wikidata items to
> items defined elsewhere on the semantic web? If not, what would be the
> best alternative?
>
> -Ben
>
> [1] http://www.obofoundry.org
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
