RE: RDFa in Wikipedia

ah, gotcha... i'm in the camp that thinks the barrier-to-entry for dbPedia/wikipedia-tagging is lower than, say, openGUID -- thus, as a mainstream phenomenon, wikipedia proves most useful for categorisation (essentially, it's happening at a grassroots level naturally)... thus, for *some* use cases (clearly not all, by any means), the "drift" on wikipedia identifiers (less than 5% by most counts) is forgivable. as i'd see it: "A SMALL FEW Wikipedia URIs evolve over time..." ;-)

however, for many use cases, even this small amount of drfit won't be acceptable... and this helps me understand your reason for openGUID. i think i get it more know, cool stuff.


best--

--cs


-----Original Message-----
From: Jason Borro [mailto:jason@openguid.net]
Sent: Tue 9/30/2008 10:42 AM
To: Chris Sizemore
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Subject: Re: RDFa in Wikipedia
 
Wikipedia URIs evolve over time as new concepts are added and 
disambiguated.  Any data linked to those URIs would need remapping. 
There is also a notability requirement for existence.

UMBEL has a nice subject concept space, though some would argue it is 
just one view of the world.  Linked entities can benefit if they find a 
place in that ontology.

OpenGUID is a permanent identifier that doesn't have a view of the 
world.  So unnotable taoists like me can have reliably linked data.

I guess I'm just self-serving,
Jason

Chris Sizemore wrote:
> there's a UMBEL to dBPedia (thus wikipedia?) mapping already out there, 
> i think. not sure if this would provide what you mean?
> 
> also, interestingly, we've been spending some time 
> "tagging/categorizing" our content with wikipedia URIs (thus dBpedia 
> URIs)... which, when they map to UMBEL or MusicBRainz, etc
> 
> so, i remain puzzled as to the supposed difference between 
> dBpedia/wikipedia, UMBEL, and now openGUID? don't these all basically 
> overlap, as lists of subjects/concepts? which isn't a bad thing, BTW...
> 
> 
> best--
> 
> --cs
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jason Borro [mailto:jason@openguid.net]
> Sent: Tue 9/30/2008 1:54 AM
> To: Chris Sizemore
> Cc: public-lod@w3.org
> Subject: Re: RDFa in Wikipedia
> 
> I was talking about tagging wikipedia articles with a subject (UMBEL or
> Open GUID, e.g.)
> 
> I did see the Semantic-MediaWiki project, but that is more geared
> towards specific ontologies.  There was a student recently working on an
> RDFa plugin for it [1], but not sure how extractable that is to base
> MediaWiki.
> 
> There was also a student submission to the SWIKIG group that did not
> receive any responses.  Might be out of date.
> 
> 1.
> http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=DC7AB12E-3941-43E3-BB84-408802AA3C7D%40gmail.com
> 2. http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/pipermail/swikig/2007-July/000427.html
> 
> Chris Sizemore wrote:
>  > hi jason, are you talking about "tagging" wikipedia articles or more
>  > about tagging other content with wikipedia URIs?
>  >
>  >
>  > best--
>  >
>  > --cs
>  >
>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: public-lod-request@w3.org [mailto:public-lod-request@w3.org] On
>  > Behalf Of jason@openguid.net
>  > Sent: 27 September 2008 23:59
>  > To: public-lod@w3.org
>  > Subject: RDFa in Wikipedia
>  >
>  >
>  > Some of the biggest linked datasets are derived from Wikipedia and
>  > semantic URIs are generated from article names.
>  >
>  > Wouldn't it make sense to develop a MediaWiki plugin (or core
>  > enhancement) that allows tagging of an article with a URI instead?
>  >
>  > Ideally you could tag any arbitrary content with the 'about' attribute,
>  > etc (a full featured RDFa plugin).  Though tagging just the main content
>  > div would be a great start.  Maybe it's as simple as a text box at the
>  > bottom of the article edit screen.
>  >
>  > Then we would just need to convince Mr. Wales to enable it on Wikipedia
>  > and we would have more robust subject mapping.
>  >
>  > Thoughts?  Anyone familiar with MediaWiki have free cycles?  :)
>  >
>  > Jason
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > http://www.bbc.co.uk/
>  > This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
> stated.
>  > If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
>  > Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in 
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
>  > Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
>  > Further communication will signify your consent to this.
>  >                                      
>  >
>  >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk
> This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain 
> personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically 
> stated.
> If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
> Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in 
> reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
> Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
> Further communication will signify your consent to this.






http://www.bbc.co.uk/
This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated.
If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system.
Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately.
Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received.
Further communication will signify your consent to this.