4 ms·
Perhaps, but this seems to be moving towards a more holistic machine-readable article graph. If you look at a page from wikidata[0], it seems to be basically a
by coolreader18 6y ago
Perhaps, but this seems to be moving towards a more holistic machine-readable article graph. If you look at a page from wikidata[0], it seems to be basically a key-value database (e.g. earth.highest point = [ mount everest { from sea level, 8000m } ], while the "full article" terminology used in the announcement seems like it may be even more connected/informative/structured than that.
[0]: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2
- afandian 6y agoAgreed, but my point was that the aim has always been to encode these facts and then mix them into wikipedia for any assertion / attribute, so that any fact is backed by an assertion.
- Vinnl 6y agoExactly. The main difference is that they would now not be used to generate the infoboxes, but actual prose.
- baddox 6y agoI don't see any indication that Abstract Wikipedia articles are anything more than a sequence of "constructors" and those "constructors" are essentially just triples (with qualifiers) that a "renderer" turns into a specific human language. The example they give is the constructor: rank(SanFrancisco, city, 4, population, California) And the English renderer will output: "San Francisco is the fourth largest city by population in California."
- Tarean 6y agoThe data is stored as a bunch of triples but it encodes a graph. You can use tools like sparql to query that graph. https://www.stardog.com/tutorials/sparql/ https://www.stardog.com/tutorials/sparql/