One more thing, I would be interested in. I don't think comparing wikidata and
freebase to DBpedia will make sense as these are sources for us. However we
could compare DBpedia including the Wikidata and Freebase part to the Google
Knowledge Graph and repeat this every three months to guide our community in
integrating more sources. Can we do that?
-- Sebastian
On September 20, 2019 8:07:28 PM GMT+02:00, "Denny Vrandečić"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>I would love your input! I will send the link here, and any
>contribution
>will be welcome :)
>
>Thank you!
>
>On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 11:05 AM Samuel Klein <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>> I'm also interested in this comparison and intersection, and glad to
>share
>> perspective + help. Warmly, SJ
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 1:32 PM Denny Vrandečić <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, you're touching exactly on the problems I had during the
>evaluation
>>> - I couldn't even figure out what DBpedia is. Thanks, your help will
>be
>>> very much appreciated.
>>>
>>> OK, I will send a link the week after the next, and then we can
>start
>>> working on it :) I am very much looking forward to it.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 10:11 AM Sebastian Hellmann <
>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Na, I am quite open, albeit impulsive. The information given was
>quite
>>>> good and some of my concerns regarding the involvement of Google
>were also
>>>> lifted or relativized. Mainly due to the fact that there seems to
>be a
>>>> sense of awareness.
>>>>
>>>> I am just studying economic principles, which are very powerful. I
>also
>>>> have the feeling that free and open stuff just got a lot more
>commercial
>>>> and I am still struggling with myself whether this is good or not.
>Also
>>>> whether DBpedia should become frenemies with BigTech. Or funny
>things like
>>>> many funding agencies try to push for national sustainability
>options, but
>>>> most of the time, they suggest to use the GitHub Platform. Wikibase
>could
>>>> be an option here.
>>>>
>>>> I have to apologize for the Knowledge Graph Talk thing. I was a bit
>>>> grumpy, because I thought I wasted a lot of time on the Talk page
>that
>>>> could have been invested in making the article better (WP:BE_BOLD
>style),
>>>> but now I think, it might have been my own mistake. So apologies
>for
>>>> lashing out there.
>>>>
>>>> (see comments below)
>>>> On 20.09.19 17:53, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Sebastian,
>>>>
>>>> "I don't want to facilitate conspiracy theories, but ..."
>>>> "[I am] interested in what is the truth behind the truth"
>>>>
>>>> I am sorry, I truly am, but this *is* the language I know from
>>>> conspiracy theorists. And given that, I cannot imagine that there
>is
>>>> anything I can say that could convince you otherwise. Therefore
>there is no
>>>> real point for me in engaging with this conversation on these
>terms, I
>>>> cannot see how it would turn constructive.
>>>>
>>>> The answers to many of your questions are public and on the record.
>>>> Others tried to point you to them (thanks), but you dismiss them as
>not
>>>> fitting your narrative.
>>>>
>>>> So here's a suggestion, which I think might be much more
>constructive
>>>> and forward-looking:
>>>>
>>>> I have been working on a comparison of DBpedia, Wikidata, and
>Freebase
>>>> (and since you've read my thesis, you know that's a thing I know a
>bit
>>>> about). Simple evaluation, coverage, correctness, nothing
>dramatically
>>>> fancy. But I am torn about publishing it, because, d'oh, people may
>(with
>>>> good reasons) dismiss it as being biased. And truth be told - the
>simple
>>>> fact that I don't know DBpedia as well as I know Wikidata and
>Freebase
>>>> might indeed have lead to errors, mistakes, and stuff I missed in
>the
>>>> evaluation. But you know what would help?
>>>>
>>>> You.
>>>>
>>>> My suggestion is that I publish my current draft, and then you and
>me
>>>> work together on it, publically, in the open, until we reach a
>state we
>>>> both consider correct enough for publication.
>>>>
>>>> What do you think?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, we are doing statistics at the moment as well. It is a bit
>hard to
>>>> define what DBpedia is nowadays as we are rebranding the remixed
>datasets,
>>>> now that we can pick up links and other data from the Databus. It
>might not
>>>> even be a real dataset anymore, but glue between datasets focusing
>on the
>>>> speed of integration and ease of quality improvement. Also still
>working on
>>>> the concrete Sync Targets for GlobalFactSync (
>>>>
>https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/DBpedia/GlobalFactSyncRE)
>>>> as well.
>>>>
>>>> One question I have is whether Wikidata is effective/efficient or
>where
>>>> it is effective and where it could use improvement as a chance for
>>>> collaboration.
>>>>
>>>> So yes any time.
>>>>
>>>> -- Sebastian
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Denny
>>>>
>>>> P.S.: I am travelling the next week, so I may ask for patience
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 8:11 AM Thad Guidry <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Thank you for sharing your opinions, Sebastian.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> Thad
>>>>> https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2019 at 9:43 AM Sebastian Hellmann <
>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi Thad,
>>>>>> On 20.09.19 15:28, Thad Guidry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With my tech evangelist hat on...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Google's philanthropy is nearly boundless when it comes to the
>>>>>> promotion of knowledge. Why? Because indeed it's in their best
>interest
>>>>>> otherwise no one can prosper without knowledge. They aggregate
>knowledge
>>>>>> for the benefit of mankind, and then make a profit through
>advertising ...
>>>>>> all while making that knowledge extremely easy to be found for
>the world.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am neither pro-Google or anti-Google per se. Maybe skeptical
>and
>>>>>> interested in what is the truth behind the truth. Google is not
>synonym to
>>>>>> philanthropy. Wikimedia is or at least I think they are doing
>many things
>>>>>> right. Google is a platform, so primarily they "aggregate
>knowledge for
>>>>>> their benefit" while creating enough incentives in form of
>accessibility
>>>>>> for users to add the user's knowledge to theirs. It is not about
>what
>>>>>> Google offers, but what it takes in return. 20% of employees time
>is also
>>>>>> an investment in the skill of the employee, a Google asset called
>Human
>>>>>> Capital and also leads to me and Denny from Google discussing
>whether
>>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Knowledge_Graph is content
>>>>>> marketing or knowledge (@Denny: no offense, legit arguments, but
>no agenda
>>>>>> to resolve the stalled discussion there). Except I don't have 20%
>time to
>>>>>> straighten the view into what I believe would be neutral, so
>pushing it
>>>>>> becomes a resource issue.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I found the other replies much more realistic and the perspective
>is
>>>>>> yet unclear. Maybe Mozilla wasn't so much frenemy with Google and
>got
>>>>>> removed from the browser market for it. I am also thinking about
>Linked
>>>>>> Open Data. Decentralisation is quite weak, individually. I guess
>spreading
>>>>>> all the Wikibases around to super-nodes is helpful unless it
>prevents the
>>>>>> formation of a stronger lobby of philanthropists or competition
>to BigTech.
>>>>>> Wikidata created some pressure on DBpedia as well (also
>opportunities), but
>>>>>> we are fine since we can simply innovate. Others might not
>withstand.
>>>>>> Microsoft seems to favor OpenStreetMaps so I am just asking to
>which degree
>>>>>> Open Source and Open Data is being instrumentalised by BigTech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hence my question, whether it is compromise or be removed. (Note
>that
>>>>>> states are also platforms, which measure value in GDP and make
>laws and
>>>>>> roads and take VAT on transactions. Sometimes, they even don't
>remove
>>>>>> opposition.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> All the best,
>>>>>> Sebastian Hellmann
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies
>(KILT)
>>>>>> Competence Center
>>>>>> at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig
>University
>>>>>> Executive Director of the DBpedia Association
>>>>>> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://nlp2rdf.org,
>>>>>> http://linguistics.okfn.org, https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt
>>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt>
>>>>>> Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann
>>>>>> Research Group: http://aksw.org
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>>>> [email protected]
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> All the best,
>>>> Sebastian Hellmann
>>>>
>>>> Director of Knowledge Integration and Linked Data Technologies
>(KILT)
>>>> Competence Center
>>>> at the Institute for Applied Informatics (InfAI) at Leipzig
>University
>>>> Executive Director of the DBpedia Association
>>>> Projects: http://dbpedia.org, http://nlp2rdf.org,
>>>> http://linguistics.okfn.org, https://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt
>>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/ld4lt>
>>>> Homepage: http://aksw.org/SebastianHellmann
>>>> Research Group: http://aksw.org
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Samuel Klein @metasj w:user:sj +1 617 529
>4266
>> <(617)%20529-4266>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
