W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > March 2010

Should dbpedia have stuff in that is not from wikipedia - was: Re: A URI(Web ID) for the semantic web community as a foaf:Group

From: Hugh Glaser <hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 01:58:09 +0000
To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Tom Heath <tom.heath@talis.com>
CC: "KangHao Lu (Kenny)" <kennyluck@csail.mit.edu>, "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEW3|045b1d03732e9ed5955d6b54de529654m2Q1wb02hg|ecs.soton.ac.uk|C7D316B1.1125C%hg@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
I have changed the subject, as things seem to be fragmenting, and this is my
interpretation of one of the fragments.

Please correct me if this is a wrong understanding:
Part of his complaint is that Kingsley has complained that dbpedia is
publishing some stuff that he disagrees with.
As far as I can tell, this is not stuff that comes from wikipedia.
If it was, he could go in and try to change the pages, and enjoy the
delights of the wikipedia editorial process, which might or might not give
him satisfaction.

But because this is only from dbpedia, he has no such possibility.
This is an interest to me because there is a whole load of other stuff that
appears under the dbpedia banner, mostly concerned with sameAs with other
resources (some of which I disagree with).

I think that most people who use dbpedia are using it on the basis that what
they get from dbpedia is a reflection (for good or bad, of course) of the
contents of wikipedia infoboxes and whatever else the dbpedia team have
managed to glean from the site.

Adding other stuff, for whatever reason, complicates the trust and
provenance of the source.
Exactly what is the provenance of resolving a dbpedia URI?
Well, it is a subset of the wikipedia information, plus possibly a chunk
more.

I think that dbpedia (all praise to its amazing achievement) should restrict
itself to publishing exactly and only what it has gleaned from wikipedia,
and any other stuff should be published elsewhere.

It is exciting that we are getting to be sufficiently successful that these
questions become significant!

Best
Hugh
Received on Saturday, 27 March 2010 01:59:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:25 UTC