News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Wikifunctions by andybak on Sunday July 30, 2023 @06:27AM (#36929734)
Wow. This feels like someone has taken a Borges parody and ran with it:

> What is the scope of the new "Wikipedia of functions"?

> [...] Vrandečić explained the concept of Abstract Wikipedia and a "wiki for functions" using an example describing political happenings involving San Francisco mayor London Breed:

> "Instead of saying "in order to deny her the advantage of the incumbent, the board votes in January 2018 to replace her with Mark Farrell as interim mayor until the special elections", imagine we say something more abstract such as elect(elector: Board of Supervisors, electee: Mark Farrell, position: Mayor of San Francisco, reason: deny(advantage of incumbency, London Breed)) – and even more, all of these would be language-independent identifiers, so that thing would actually look more like Q40231(Q3658756, Q6767574, Q1343202(Q6015536, Q6669880)).

> [...] We still need to translate [this] abstract content to natural language. So we would need to know that the elect constructor mentioned above takes the three parameters in the example, and that we need to make a template such as {elector} elected {electee} to {position} in order to {reason} (something that looks much easier in this example than it is for most other cases). And since the creation of such translators has to be made for every supported language, we need to have a place to create such translators so that a community can do it.

I'm not sure I'm smart enough to decide if this is all really stupid or not. If I had to summarize my feelings it would probably be along the lines of Q6767574, (Q6015536, Q654880), Q65660.

Re:Wikifunctions by ulucs on Sunday July 30, 2023 @07:01AM (#36929915)
Reads even worse than Ulillillia literature, at least he doesn’t fully yield to scientific measurements
Re:Wikifunctions by _dain_ on Sunday July 30, 2023 @07:37AM (#36930124)
this is the kind of unhinged make-work schemes all those wikipedia beg banners are funding
Re:Wikifunctions by vrandecic on Monday July 31, 2023 @08:38PM (#36950870)
This particular work is mostly funded through a set of large restricted donations, not through the general funds.
Re:Wikifunctions by mst on Sunday July 30, 2023 @08:37AM (#36930558)
Feels a lot like RDF, especially in terms of how I expect the underlying utopian dream to play out.
Re:Wikifunctions by andybak on Sunday July 30, 2023 @09:23AM (#36930924)
Re:Wikifunctions by starkparker on Sunday July 30, 2023 @01:01PM (#36933288)
Vrandečić was Google's consultant on the old Freebase's RDF export. Wikidata, which he helped create, succeeded it. It's the same people pushing the same solution under different names.
Re:Wikifunctions by Levitz on Sunday July 30, 2023 @11:17AM (#36932045)
My takeaway from this is that Wikimedia clearly has way, way too much money.
Re:Wikifunctions by sundarurfriend on Sunday July 30, 2023 @11:40AM (#36932367)
* * *
Re:Wikifunctions by tgv on Sunday July 30, 2023 @02:05PM (#36934126)
THAT's the reason? Conveying a sentence as a series of propositions or a tree with case labels has been tried in the previous century, without success. It does not offer a good basis for translation, as e.g. Philips' Rosetta project showed. It works for simple cases, but as soon as the text becomes more complex, it runs into all the horrible little details that make up language.

A simple example: in Spanish you don't say "I like X" but "X pleases me". In Dutch you say, "I find X tasty" or "X is good" or something else entirely, depending on what X is. Those are three fairly close languages. How can you encode that simple sentence in such a way that it translates properly for all languages, now and in the future?

Symbolic representation isn't going to cut it outside a very narrow subset of language. It might work for highly technical, unambiguous, simple content, but not in general. Whatever you think of ChatGPT, it shows that a neural network can't be beaten for linguistic representation.

Re:Wikifunctions by bawolff on Sunday July 30, 2023 @04:27PM (#36935602)
> It might work for highly technical, unambiguous, simple content

I mean, the goal is wikipedia lite basically - so they are targeting technical unambigious simple content.

My understanding is the goal to target small languages where it is unlikely anyone is ever going to put in the effort (or have a big enough corpus) to do the statistical translation methods. Sort of a - this will be better than nothing approach.

Re:Wikifunctions by andybak on Sunday July 30, 2023 @07:10PM (#36936974)
But it seems like a huge amount of work to achieve that goal.

I suspect a large proportion of the realistic target audience are bilingual.

Re:Wikifunctions by tgv on Monday July 31, 2023 @05:57AM (#36940500)
The original paper [0] envisages a much wider scope. Vrandecic literally quotes "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge".

It also makes the task of the editor much, much more difficult than it is now.

[0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.04733.pdf

Re:Wikifunctions by bawolff on Monday July 31, 2023 @07:25PM (#36950270)
Tbf, that quote gets thrown around wikimedia every 10 seconds. I wouldn't take the quote too literally.