Hello Maarten, We do Semantic SEO so we heavily rely on the schema.org vocabulary. We're using a SPARQL approach, our input parameter is a DBpedia URI which we use to retrieve schema.org types and properties using the following properties chains:
* wdt:P31* (instance of) /wdt:P279* (subclass of) /wdt:P1709* (equivalent class) to retrieve the schema.org types * wdt:P1628 (equivalent property) to retrieve the schema.org properties The result is quite encouraging, e.g. [1]: [1] https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool/u/1/#url=https%3A%2F%2Fmagazin.audible.de%2Fhoerbuchtipp-erbarmen%2F%3F1 I hope this helps. Cheers, David ► HelixWare online video platform <http://bit.ly/e-helixcloud> ► WordLift semantic web for WordPress <http://bit.ly/e-wordlift> ► RedLink - making sense of your data <http://bit.ly/e-redlink> ► US Export compliance extension for WooCommerce <http://bit.ly/1864GLD> ══════════════════════════════════════════════ ► Twitter: @ziodave --- ► InsideOut10 s.r.l. (IT-11381771002) ══════════════════════════════════════════════ On 22 September 2018 at 13:28, Maarten Dammers <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi everyone, > > Last week I presented Wikidata at the Semantics conference in Vienna ( > https://2018.semantics.cc/ ). One question I asked people was: What is > keeping you from using Wikidata? One of the common responses is that it's > quite hard to combine Wikidata with the rest of the semantic web. We have > our own private ontology that's a bit on an island. Most of our triples are > in our own private format and not available in a more generic, more widely > use ontology. > > Let's pick an example: Claude Lussan. No clue who he is, but my bot seems > to have added some links and the item isn't too big. Our URI is > http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729 and this is equivalent of > http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396 and http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id > /thes/p173983111 . If you look at http://www.wikidata.org/entity > /Q2977729.rdf this equivalence is represented as: > <wdtn:P214 rdf:resource="http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396"/> > <wdtn:P1006 rdf:resource="http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 > "/> > > Also outputting it in a more generic way would probably make using it > easier than it is right now. Last discussion about this was at > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1921 , but no response since > June. > > That's one way of linking up, but another way is using equivalent property > ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 ) and equivalent class ( > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1709 ). See for example sex or > gender ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21) how it's mapped to > other ontologies. This won't produce easier RDF, but some smart downstream > users have figured out some SPARQL queries. So linking up our properties > and classes to other ontologies will make using our data easier. This is a > first step. Maybe it will be used in the future to generate more RDF, maybe > not and we'll just document the SPARQL approach properly. > > The equivalent property and equivalent class are used, but not that much. > Did anyone already try a structured approach with reporting? I'm > considering parsing popular ontology descriptions and producing reports of > what is linked to what so it's easy to make missing links, but I don't want > to do double work here. > > What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of the > ones I came across: > * https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html > * http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/ > * http://schema.org/ > * https://creativecommons.org/ns > * http://dbpedia.org/ontology/ > * http://vocab.org/open/ > Any suggestions? > > Maarten > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
