20 ms·
>The creators are attempting to address this by actually containing every single aspect of a movie's plot as a fact, and that sentences are functions that expre
by SkyBelow 6y ago
>The creators are attempting to address this by actually containing every single aspect of a movie's plot as a fact, and that sentences are functions that express those facts... but this seems entirely unwieldy and just too much work.
Doesn't this also get into issues where facts aren't clearly defined. I can think of a lot of interpretation of meaning from my literature classes, but there are also questions such as ownership of land at contested borders, if something was a legal acquisition or theft, or even coming up with a factual distinction between when something is grave robbery vs archaeology. A personal favorite would be mental illness, especially with some of the DSM V changes that have largely been rejected (or outright ignored) by society. And there are all sorts of political disagreements.
And as this applies to different languages, and different languages are likely aimed at different cultures and different nations, this gets messy. I could see some differences in an article written in Hindi vs Chinese when concerning issues involving both China and India. Creating a common language will force a unification of these differences that currently might exist with a sort of stalemate with each linguistic side by maintained by the dominant country for that language.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 6y agoAmbiguity, probability, and conflict can themselves be modeled. As long as participants agree on something resembling a common reality, they should at least be able to agree that there is a disagreement.
- schoen 6y agoThis reminds me greatly of Leonard Cohen's line "There is a war between the ones who say there is a war and the ones who say there isn't." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qjmxTQ1o0M https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1qjmxTQ1o0M (In Wikipedia jargon, I guess some people or countries are apt to say that their opponents' points of view are non-notable?)
- yorwba 6y ago> questions such as ownership of land at contested borders The entity representing Kashmir https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q43100 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q43100 has three statements each for "country" and "territory claimed by", reflecting the claims by China, India and Pakistan. There are separate entities for Taiwan (the Republic of China) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q865 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q865 , Taiwan (the island) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22502 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q22502 , Taiwan (the province of the Republic of China) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q32081 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q32081 and Taiwan (the province of the People's Republic of China) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q57251 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q57251 . So Wikidata can handle conflicting information by collecting all of it, but clearly separating the different viewpoints in a kind of "split brain". That works so long as the different sides can agree that their opponent's views are what they state they are. In an Abstract Wikipedia article, that means that all viewpoints with a sufficiently large userbase might end up represented equally in all language versions, but they'll still be clearly distinguished as such, so the reader can apply their own value judgments to support their own side's viewpoint over that of their enemies.