Re: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org> wrote:
> I disagree that these aren't really rdf:types. An rdf:Type is a named set of individuals. Individuals can have multiple types and Wikipedia category/list pages appear to be reasonable "pages" for managing individuals in named sets. We might agree that this or that set of individuals isn't worth worthy of being a named set, but that's life in an open world model.
>

The issue is that the set isn't curated as an rdf:Type, but as a
Wikipedia category.  That means that if a Wikipedia editor thinks
GenderDifferencesInBritishWriting (made up example) is something a
reader would like to see Category:EnglishWomenWriters they go ahead
and add it without any consideration for the fact that the page is not
about a writer or a woman.

When the DBpedia importer assigns the type yago:EnglishWomenWriters to
the entities derived from pages in this category, all kinds of logical
inconsistencies will result.  You can't blame the Wikipedia editors
for this since they never signed up to do data entry for DBpedia and
there's no feedback mechanism for them to even learn that there might
be a potential problem downstream.

Tom

> Jeff
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Tom Morris [mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 12:51 PM
>> To: Karen Coyle
>> Cc: Young,Jeff (OR); Dan Brickley; Ed Summers; public-lld@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
>> >>
>> >> That's how DBpedia seems to do it and I think it's helpful that way.
>> Here
>> >> are the types for Jane Austen:
>> >>
>> >> rdf:type
>> >>
>> >>    * foaf:Person
>> >>    * yago:EnglishWomenWriters
>> >>    * yago:PeopleFromHampshire
>> >>    * yago:Person100007846
>> >>    * yago:EnglishNovelists
>> >>    * yago:WomenNovelists
>> >>    * yago:EnglishRomanticFictionWriters
>> >>    * yago:PeopleFromReading,Berkshire
>> >>    * yago:19th-centuryEnglishPeople
>> >>    * yago:WomenOfTheRegencyEra
>> >>    * yago:18th-centuryEnglishPeople
>>
>> Those aren't really types.  It's just an indication that her Wikipedia
>> page was linked to from those various category/list pages.  Because
>> the categories are human curated, they can include all kinds of stuff
>> which doesn't make sense from a logical or type hierarchy point of
>> view.
>>
>> > Couldn't these be deduced from other data? Using this method, you
>> would only
>> > retrieve entities that have been given these particular classes, but
>> if you
>> > turned these into data available to queries...
>> >
>> > sex:female
>> > dates: (whatever)
>> > primaryLocation: England
>> > language: English
>> > wrote: (name of novel)
>> >  (name of novel) --> has genre --> romantic fiction
>> >  (name of novel) --> has genre --> fiction (inferred?)
>> >
>> > etc. then you would be able to retrieve all or most of the above,
>> plus
>> > perhaps more. It seems to me that trying to characterize every
>> possible
>> > combination goes against the basic concepts of linked data. Actually,
>> it
>> > might not even be particularly good as a metadata practice.
>>
>> Absolutely.  You'd not only get better quality results by querying the
>> basic data directly, but you'd also get much more complete coverage
>> than Wikipedia categories provide.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>> >
>> > kc
>> >
>> >>
>> >> I admit the classes get a little crazy sometimes and wouldn't assume
>> they
>> >> are used consistently, but I think most of them make intuitive
>> sense.
>> >>
>> >> Jeff
>> >>
>> >>> -----Original Message-----
>> >>> From: public-lld-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lld-request@w3.org]
>> On
>> >>> Behalf Of Dan Brickley
>> >>> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 9:19 AM
>> >>> To: Ed Summers
>> >>> Cc: public-lld@w3.org
>> >>> Subject: Re: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF
>> >>>
>> >>> On 13 April 2011 14:50, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
>> >>> > Hi Jeff,
>> >>> >
>> >>> > First, let me just say I'm a big fan of the simplifications that
>> you
>> >>> > and Thom are proposing ... they are clearly a big improvement.
>> But I
>> >>> > am wondering about the foaf:focus pattern that you are promoting.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I know I've said this before privately in IRC to various people,
>> but
>> >>> > it's probably worth asking aloud here. Is it really necessary to
>> use
>> >>> > URIs to distinguish between the thing itself, and the concept of
>> the
>> >>> > thing?
>> >>>
>> >>> As a loose rule, I see value in the latter when the thing figures
>> in
>> >>> some SKOS scheme, either to be mentioned alongside other related
>> >>> entities (also indirectly as concepts) or so that
>> >>> person_123_as_politician, person_123_as_parent,
>> person_123_as_author
>> >>> could be distinguished as different topics. There is value in that,
>> >>> both for using those topic URIs to characterise information, but
>> also
>> >>> to talk in more detail about skills/expertise. Someone might be a
>> >>> world export on "President George Bush snr. as a manager".
>> >>>
>> >>> I tend to see your question as a variant on "why both using SKOS
>> RDF
>> >>> to describe concepts of thing, when I could just describe the world
>> >>> directly in RDF?".
>> >>>
>> >>> That's a fair question. I find
>> >>> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/REC-skos-reference-20090818/#L1045 still
>> a
>> >>> useful overview...
>> >>>
>> >>> Dan
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Karen Coyle
>> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> > m: 1-510-435-8234
>> > skype: kcoylenet
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 13 April 2011 18:29:34 UTC