> Frankly speaking I am having a hard time making sense out of wik.me. For instance, > I typed in Germany and got about 30 results in the 'Germany may include' list. Most
> of them were about German soccer teams, heavy metal bands, or the city Ogden in Utah.
The connection to Ogden is pretty tenuous, I'll admit and it's an example of a dbPedia triple that shouldn't have made it past the filter. I might add that more than half
of DBPedia's triples were dumped because of their quality.
This is what you get when you ask a machine to read human language. But wik.me *does* give you the power to change these errors - which I've just done on the Ogden page with the
comment "@bot, this is not connected to Germany."
> From my perspective this list does not follow any order nor does it contain relevant > links about Germany in general (leaving the first link aside).
I guess you're not a heavy metal fan. Some of us are ;-). Seriously though - the keyword search list is ranked by popularity. The site wik.me is a *discovery* tool, not an exercise in
presenting structure.
> After following the first link from the 'Germany may include' list, I get a single sentence > definition of Germany and then a category called 'Contains'. This category seems to be spatial
> containment at first but it is not. I lists some German cities, some German states, the Oktoberfest, > the German term 'Schadenfreude' and so forth. All this comes without any further *structure* and is
> rather confusing.
This is a forum about ontology, so I shouldn't be surprised that everything is looked at through "structure" glasses. You will be confused, because the internal structure is not apparent, and the "structure"
presented is created for wik.me by inference.
You're expecting too much from the site - think of it as search engine with just a little more structure.
> After clicking on the city Duesseldorf, I don't get any additional results but just the around the Web section.
The hope is that people like you, who know something about Dusseldorf, will add some facts about it. I note that no-one on this forum has tried that yet so perhaps we need to make the mechanism more obvious.
> Powerset.com, for instance, followed a similar but way more advanced approach in 2008 before they got bought > and closed by Microsoft. The same is true for Freebase and other projects that provide structured data.
No. This I take issue with. Powerset may have developed some advanced NLP, but the scope, intent and execution of the project were very different. Scope and intent for Freebase are similar, but wik.me is fundamentally different
in it's structures and in the way it allows people to interact with data. Ask your eight-year-old daughter to add a fact about Dusseldorf at FreeBase and see how you go ;-)
> Again, maybe I just used the wrong terms for testing, but I do not see where wik.me is going or who will use it.
It's a proof-of-concept for us. Until we can get more data into it, I'll concede that for most it has little more than curiosity value.
Steve
On 1 March 2011 02:20, Krzysztof Janowicz <jano@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Frankly speaking I am having a hard time making sense out of wik.me.
For instance, I typed in Germany and got about 30 results in the
'Germany may include' list. Most of them were about German soccer
teams, heavy metal bands, or the city Ogden in Utah. From my
perspective this list does not follow any order nor does it contain
relevant links about Germany in general (leaving the first link
aside). The 'Around the Web' section lists some links also contained
on the first page of a Google search for the same term.
After following the first link from the 'Germany may include' list,
I get a single sentence definition of Germany and then a category
called 'Contains'. This category seems to be spatial containment at
first but it is not. I lists some German cities, some German states,
the Oktoberfest, the German term 'Schadenfreude' and so forth. All
this comes without any further *structure* and is rather confusing.
After clicking on the city Duesseldorf, I don't get any additional
results but just the around the Web section.
Powerset.com, for instance, followed a similar but way more
advanced approach in 2008 before they got bought and closed by
Microsoft. The same is true for Freebase and other projects that
provide structured data.
Again, maybe I just used the wrong terms for testing, but I do not
see where wik.me is going or who will use it.
Best,
Krzysztof
On 02/28/2011 12:36 AM, ZENG, MARCIA wrote:
@Doug: Great analysis. Steve already
explained what they have used. I am forwarding it just in
case. --Marcia
> It would be interesting to see the taxonomy, for
example, ‘shape’ is the first under ‘people’.
> Thanks for sharing this interesting service!
Our pleasure, Marcia :-)
What you found is a basic categorisation that wik.me <http://wik.me>
uses to group concepts - mainly for page presentation
purposes. wik.me/1 <http://wik.me/1> is what you
get when it can't find any concept that closely matches your
search.
The real "taxonomy" is derived from WordNet - the top level
concepts can be traced directly to WordNet noun synsets.
WordNet is a fantastic resource, and this has been a common
strategy. Root is "entity" at http://wik.me/2s .
I mentioned in my first post to this forum that our aim was to
create a structure that could serve as a kind of devolved
universal ontology/universal data schema. The challenge has
been to find a structure that maintains this universality, but
still offers some usefulness. What we have at the moment has
even fewer axioms than WordNet - and I'm sure we could
introduce more. It's a work-in-progress, and I'd certainly
value the input of anyone on this forum who is interested.
On Sun, February 27, 2011 11:44,
ZENG, MARCIA said:
> I happen to find the taxonomy behind wik.me, starting
from the high level:
>
> * organization
> * person
> * production
> * location
> * event
Very general concepts included in wik.me are not subclasses
of anything
in this list. A top-level concept that SHOULD include all
of these is
"Entity", defined as "That which is perceived or known or
inferred to
have its own distinct existence (living or nonliving)." I
suppose
things like "corner" would not be entities, since they have
no
independent existence.
I don't see that wik.me has a taxonomy. It has concepts,
which are
specified as "of" one or two other concepts. This "of" can
sometimes
mean a subclass relation, sometimes mean an instance of
relation, and
other times have other meanings.
For example, the "Corner" which is defined as "an interior
angle
formed by two meeting walls" is "of" both "building" and
"area".
The listed set leaves things such as organisms out. One
would think
that they all should be subclass of "Entity". If you follow
some type
of animal up the hierarchy, you find at many levels it is
"of" both
the next more general taxon AND "of" the current taxon type.
E.g.,
the concept "Chordata" is "of" both "phylum" and "Animalia".
However,
"Animalia" is only "of" "kingdom", it is not "of"
"Organism". The
concept "animal" is "of" both "Animalia" and "Organism", but
no chain
of "of"s links concepts for most types of animals to the
concept "animal".
Wik.me provides some interesting results, but it is no
taxonomy.
> At each 'category' there is also a synonym ring, for
example, e.g.:
>
> Person
>
> Of people, organism and causal agent May also be
referred to as
> individual, mortal, somebody, someone and soul.
>
> A human being; "there was too much for one person to
do".
>
> It would be interesting to see the taxonomy, for
example, 'shape' is the
> first under 'people'.
> Thanks for sharing this interesting service!
> Marcia
>
> On 2/27/11 4:12 AM, "Stephen Young" <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
>
> Pavithra, I think you must have misspelled "Einstein".
> http://search.wik.me/search.htm?words=Albert+Einstein
returns 20+
> concepts named for Albert Einstein - and the topmost
result is the man
> himself. And that list is something you CANNOT get
from Google.
>
> Clicking the top result http://wik.me/lfn2 ("Albert
Einstein") also gives
> you something you can't get from Google - a
self-organised presentation of
> what wik.me <http://wik.me> "knows" about
Einstein. Google knows
> *nothing* about Einstein but where to find pages that
contain the string
> "Albert Einstein".
>
> Structured data is always going to permit greater
functionality than
> keyword indexing. If it didn't, you and I wouldn't
have a job ;-)
>
> But of course Google is more robust - it would have
detected your spelling
> mistake and given you the most-likely valid
alternative. So it should be
> with 2000 engineers and over a decade of refinement.
>
> wik.me <http://wik.me> can also only
return results based on the data it
> has mapped, which means it's a valid alternative to
Google for only a
> minority of searches. Our estimates suggest that with
all organisations,
> products and services in, we should give a much better
experience for
> around 65% of all searches currently made against
Google. That's next.
>
> Steve
>
>
>
> On 26 February 2011 23:07, Pavithra <pavithra_kenjige@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> wik.me <http://wik.me/> is another
search tool with a LIST of results ..
> does not provide anything more than Google would.
Google is more robust .
> This uses information from answers.com <http://answers.com>
etc..
> The word "Albert Einstein" did not get a result at
all, but a list of
> names that started with Albert and did not include
Einstein.
>
> Qwiki.com actually provides information on what is
typed in. When it can
> not find the actual information ( NOT A LIST) it
simply says it did not
> find it. For example, if you type world's tallest
building, it did not
> find any information. They need to include lot more
data sets..
>
> Quiki.com seems to be more in the direction of web 3.0
mobile apps with
> plenty of room to grow. But the audio is very
mechanical, unlike
> Watson;s voice. ( :-) )!
>
> Pavithra
>
> --- On Fri, 2/25/11, Stephen Young <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> From: Stephen Young <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] the data mining craze
> To: "[ontolog-forum]" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Friday, February 25, 2011, 6:28 PM
>
>
> We actually characterised qwiki as the reverse wik.me
<http://wik.me>
> when we first saw it ;-) All style no substance.
There may have been
> some bitterness ;-) - we both applied to launch at
TechCrunch Disrupt last
> year. They got in, we didn't.
>
> I'm frequently amazed by what captures (and fails to
capture) the
> imagination of the technology pundit. We presented a
site/app that is a
> quantum improvement over Web 2.0 structured data plays
like Freebase and
> Factual. Among other things our video demonstrated
that anyone could
> change complex structured data with simple twitter-like
comments - and yet
> we didn't make the cut. Qwiki went on to win the
Techrunch Disrupt prize
> - followed soon after by some serious venture funding.
>
> Mind you, this forum is little different. I've just
announced the
> ontological equivalent of a flying car here and
received no more interest
> than a few private messages ;-)
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________
> Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/
> Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/
> Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
> Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/
> To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J
> To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
"I speak as an American to the leaders of my own nation. The
great
initiative in this war is ours. The initiative to stop it
must be ours."
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
=============================================================