[igravious]

Fantastic, I've read through your entire comment history :)

I'm familiar with OWL and RDF. I've been using Sparql and DBPedia, I'll switch to Sparql and Wikidata if you think that's the way to go. How do you see the overlap between DBPedia and Wikidata?

I'm concerned that there's going to be knowledge-grab by corporations and (perhaps) government entities. I fear that the knowledge graphs inside the big G and FB and Yandex and Apple and MS and so on to power their search engines and personal assistants will be orders of magnitude more sophisticated and complex and comprehensive that what will be available to open access research. Witness Freebase. Are my fears misplaced would you say?

I've read that SEP article, I've also read a good bit of Peirce's original journal article. As it says in SEP "It should be mentioned that for Peirce there is actually a trichotomy among types, tokens and tones,[...]" - I think it's amusing that basically everybody ignores the triadic distinction that Peirce claimed to be the case for a dualistic type/term distinction.

I'm looking forward to going through your tutorial quill in hand and pot of ink at the ready.

[emw]

I think SPARQL and Wikidata are the way to go.

Regarding Wikidata and DBpedia: to my understanding the latter gets much of its content by scraping Wikipedia infoboxes. Wikidata will increasingly provide data for those infoboxes, and thus DBpedia.

Regarding your fears: I don't share them. Wikidata will greatly enhance the accessibility of knowledge for open access research.