RE: Planned changes to the VIAF RDF

Tom,

I don't think it's essential that people realize they are creating RDF classes. An intuitive notion of "Category" can be close enough. I agree that somebody could create a category named GenderDifferencesInBritishWriting, but it's hard to imagine what Wikipedia pages someone would want to put in such a category. This doesn't lead to logical inconsistencies, it merely leads to nonsense. There's a difference.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tom Morris [mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 13, 2011 2:29 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: Karen Coyle; Dan Brickley; Ed Summers; public-lld@w3.org
> Subject: 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 18:47:10 UTC