Difference between revisions of "Wikispooks talk:Semantic Objects"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(another possible top level object) |
(Open question to prompt discussion) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Other Possible Objects== | ==Other Possible Objects== | ||
| − | * Ideology | + | * Ideology (set of ideas) |
| − | * Concept (e.g [[Corruption]]) | + | * Concept (e.g [[Corruption]], [[Censorship]]) |
* Law (e.g [[National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012]]) | * Law (e.g [[National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012]]) | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
::I reckon descriptions are the biggest shortfall at the moment. Well, also some important pages to connect the documents, but that cache is where most of the information is, a good wodge of source material. If you've read the document then making a good description can be very easy, so I recommend you work on that - synopses also good as and when, but I suggest descriptions first, now that there are all those empty boxes in the SMWDocs tables. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 16:13, 7 January 2014 (GMT) | ::I reckon descriptions are the biggest shortfall at the moment. Well, also some important pages to connect the documents, but that cache is where most of the information is, a good wodge of source material. If you've read the document then making a good description can be very easy, so I recommend you work on that - synopses also good as and when, but I suggest descriptions first, now that there are all those empty boxes in the SMWDocs tables. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 16:13, 7 January 2014 (GMT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == Open question to prompt discussion == | ||
| + | What type of object to assign to the "[[War on terror]]" page? This is currently has "[[template:event|event]]", but there is a considerable ideology/dogma behind it, which isn't true of most events. Possibly another object type? Concept? Ideology? [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (GMT) | ||
==Approach to defining objects== | ==Approach to defining objects== | ||
I'm just eyeballing [[Category:Content]] looking for how this content can easily be represented semantically. I expect there'll be about 8-10 top level objects. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 12:53, 12 January 2014 (GMT) | I'm just eyeballing [[Category:Content]] looking for how this content can easily be represented semantically. I expect there'll be about 8-10 top level objects. [[User:Robin|Robin]] ([[User talk:Robin|talk]]) 12:53, 12 January 2014 (GMT) | ||
Revision as of 16:39, 18 March 2014
Contents
Other Possible Objects
- Ideology (set of ideas)
- Concept (e.g Corruption, Censorship)
- Law (e.g National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012)
Group Types
- Company
- Nation State
Exactly how to define sub-objects is an open question as yet.
- Agreed your last sentence :-)). I guess there's little option but to grow the 'property tree' like categories - but with the benefit of hindsight and thus a tad more thought.
- I also agree that list with people and events at the top of the priority order. Need to be clear about books too. We currently have maybe 100 full books (Category:EBooks) plus assorted book reviews, extracts and synopses. We probably need 'Sysnopsis' as another sub-property of 'Document' too. Re latest email exchange with Joel van der Reijden, I can see me doing lots of those. --Peter P (talk) 07:19, 7 January 2014 (GMT)
- I reckon descriptions are the biggest shortfall at the moment. Well, also some important pages to connect the documents, but that cache is where most of the information is, a good wodge of source material. If you've read the document then making a good description can be very easy, so I recommend you work on that - synopses also good as and when, but I suggest descriptions first, now that there are all those empty boxes in the SMWDocs tables. Robin (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2014 (GMT)
Open question to prompt discussion
What type of object to assign to the "War on terror" page? This is currently has "event", but there is a considerable ideology/dogma behind it, which isn't true of most events. Possibly another object type? Concept? Ideology? Robin (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2014 (GMT)
Approach to defining objects
I'm just eyeballing looking for how this content can easily be represented semantically. I expect there'll be about 8-10 top level objects. Robin (talk) 12:53, 12 January 2014 (GMT)
