A Dataset Catalog: http://www.datawrangling.com/some-datasets-available-on-the-...
We need a Wikipedia for data
41–50 of 56 posts
Re: We need a Wikipedia for data
#42Re: We need a Wikipedia for data
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly my thought. Freebase is awesome, I just wish they didn't use JSON.
Why no JSON?
I'll be the first to admit it might just be me ;)
I prefer XML and haven't used JSON extensively enough to be proficient with it. If there are pluses to using JSON over XML I'm ignorant to them.
Re: We need a Wikipedia for data
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
I really shouldn't be doing this... > Why is "metacrap" a problem for the semantic web, but not for data-Wikipedia? Because Wikipedia is centralized, and the SemWeb isn't. > The Shirky article is a well-known strawman. DH3. Contradiction
I don't want to turn this into a huge debate either, but those articles (and uncritical readings of them) have set the web back years. > Because Wikipedia is centralized, and the SemWeb isn't. If data-Wikipedia and a television station are both publishing data about when your favorite show is on that station, who are you more likely to believe? Obviously you need to be careful about where your data comes from, but a…
I'm happy some Semantic Web proponents understand that blind crawling won't work. But TimBL disagrees:
> I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers... The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize.
The debunking explicitly agrees with Shirky's conclusion, and should have given more serious scrutiny to his premise. The RDF format deals with "triples" precisely to enable inferences ("syllogisms"). Syllogisms are the only thing the SemWeb brings to the table that wasn't there before. If we have to pick sources and massage data by hand as you say, then I'll go with CSV files.
Re: We need a Wikipedia for data
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
An open translation dictionary is a fantastic idea. You would have to be careful to clarify the context. A word in one language can often translate to several words in another language, for example. But I think it's do-able. And I think you meant 100 thousand words per language. :-)
I don't mean a dictionary (also a good idea), I meant texts: articles, novels, blog posts, transcripts of conversations, etc. As for dictionaries, there's wiktionary, but it's broken because it's based on words, not meanings, so you'd need 30*29 translations for each word. Mmm, maybe I should do it...
But a good translation is really, really tough to do. It's an art form. Just having a basic context isn't usually enough. "I'm going there to see you." Am going on foot or by car? (Gehen vs. fahren; chodit vs jezdit.) And how well do I know you? Each culture has a different point where they go from formal (Vous/Sie/Vy) to informal (tu/du/ty), based on how well you know someone. I'm telling you, it's tough.
Re: We need a Wikipedia for data
#46Re: We need a Wikipedia for data
#47we need a wikipedia for ______ is generally true. the problem is getting all the knowledgeable people involved with ______ to contribute their time.
Re: We need a Wikipedia for data
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't want to turn this into a huge debate either, but those articles (and uncritical readings of them) have set the web back years. > Because Wikipedia is centralized, and the SemWeb isn't. If data-Wikipedia and a television station are both publishing data about when your favorite show is on that station, who are you more likely to believe? Obviously you need to be careful about where your data comes from, but a…
I'm happy some Semantic Web proponents understand that blind crawling won't work. But TimBL disagrees: > I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers... The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize. The debunking explicitly agrees with Shirky's conclusion, and sho…
Where does TimBL say that "intelligent agents" will be blindly crawling? Certainly agents have to follow links they haven't seen before (there wouldn't be much point if they didn't), but following links provided by trusted sources is vastly different from what Google does.
> The RDF format deals with "triples" precisely to enable inferences ("syllogisms").
As far as I know, this is not and has never been true.
RDF deals with triples because they're a small unit of data, which makes it easy to take the chunks you want from one dataset and graft them onto another set.
I suppose you can call matching URIs to graft one triple onto another a syllogism, but it would be a stretch; if that's a syllogism then so is joining two tables in a relational database. It has nothing in common with the ridiculous examples Shirky uses.
> If we have to pick sources and massage data by hand as you say, then I'll go with CSV files.
Have fun merging data from multiple sources. RDF can't make this completely painless, but it can make it easier than CSV files.
Your third article doesn't make much sense to me. How is RDF "semantically committed"? An individual RDF vocabulary is "semantically committed", but so is an individual XML schemas or a documented use of JSON. RDF (like XML and JSON, and the generic tools for all 3) doesn't care what you put in it.
Re: We need a Wikipedia for data
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll be the first to admit it might just be me ;) I prefer XML and haven't used JSON extensively enough to be proficient with it. If there are pluses to using JSON over XML I'm ignorant to them.
"Readmore" perhaps? ;)
HA, nice one! Any suggestions on where to start?
Re: We need a Wikipedia for data
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm happy some Semantic Web proponents understand that blind crawling won't work. But TimBL disagrees: > I have a dream for the Web [in which computers] become capable of analyzing all the data on the Web – the content, links, and transactions between people and computers... The ‘intelligent agents’ people have touted for ages will finally materialize. The debunking explicitly agrees with Shirky's conclusion, and sho…
Where does TimBL say that "intelligent agents" will be blindly crawling? Certainly agents have to follow links they haven't seen before (there wouldn't be much point if they didn't), but following links provided by trusted sources is vastly different from what Google does. > The RDF format deals with "triples" precisely to enable inferences ("syllogisms"). As far as I know, this is not and has never been true. RDF de…
Me:
>> The RDF format deals with "triples" precisely to enable inferences ("syllogisms").
You:
> As far as I know, this is not and has never been true.
TimBL, http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Semantic.html :
> sometimes it is less than evident why one should bother to map an application in RDF. The answer is that we expect this data, while limited and simple within an application, to be combined, later, with data from other applications into a Web. Applications which run over the whole web must be able to use a common framework for combining information from all these applications. For example, access control logic may use a combination of privacy and group membership and data type information to actually allow or deny access. Queries may later allow powerful logical expressions referring to data from domains in which, individually, the data representation language is not very expressive.
I'm not sure if this quote supports my point of view or yours, or even if there's any factual difference between our views.