text:
Charlton, London

Charlton is an area of southeast London, England, in the Royal Borough of Greenwich. It is east of Greenwich and west of Woolwich, on the south bank of the River Thames, 7.2 mi southeast of Charing Cross. An ancient parish in the county of Kent, it became part of the metropolitan area of London in 1855 and is home to Charlton Athletic F.C. and Charlton House.

Toponymy
Charlton is recorded in the 1086 Domesday Book as Cerletone. It is formed from Old English 'ceorl' and 'tūn' and means 'farmstead of the freemen or peasants'. It is a common English placename and the parish was also known as Charlton next Woolwich to distinguish it from Charlton by Dover. During the 19th century the riverside portion of the area became known as New Charlton.

Middle Ages
Charlton is assessed in the Domesday Book of 1086 at one "sulung", which is commonly held to have been the equivalent of two hides. In 1086 it was in the fee of Gundulf, bishop of Rochester, but in 1066 it had been held from the king as two estates, by two brothers, named Godwine and Alweard. Though assessed at only one sulung, it had a slightly higher value than might be expected, at £7, both in 1066 and in 1086. A church dedicated to St Luke is recorded in the village as early as 1077, although no trace of the medieval building survives.

In 1093, the manor of Charlton was given to Bermondsey Abbey by Bishop Robert Bloet of Lincoln. In 1268, the Abbey was granted a Monday market at Charlton, as well as an annual fair of three days, centred on Trinity Sunday, the eighth Sunday after Easter.

Renaissance

Between 1607 and 1612, Sir Adam Newton, tutor to Prince Henry, eldest son of James I, had a new manor house, Charlton House, built in the village. The Jacobean mansion by architect John Thorpe was never used by the prince, who died in 1612. On the northern edge of the house's garden is a mulberry tree planted in 1608 by order of King James in an effort to cultivate silkworms. On the death of Sir Adam, his executors Peter Newton and David Cunningham of Auchenharvie were charged to rebuild St Luke's Church.

Early Modern
The manor was subsequently acquired by the colonial administrator Sir William Langhorne, 1st Baronet, who is buried in the parish church. Upon his death without issue in 1715, his possessions in Charlton and Hampstead passed to the Conyers baronets, and subsequently to the Maryon-Wilson baronets.

In the early 18th century, Charlton was described by Daniel Defoe as:

"a village famous, or rather infamous for the yearly collected rabble of mad-people, at Horn-Fair; the rudeness of which I cannot but think, is such as ought to be suppressed, and indeed in a civiliz'd well govern'd nation, it may well be said to be unsufferable. The mob indeed at that time take all kinds of liberties, and the women are especially impudent for that day; as if it was a day that justify'd the giving themselves a loose to all manner of indecency and immodesty, without any reproach, or without suffering the censure which such behaviour would deserve at another time. (from A Tour through Great Britain)"

The Horn Fair (or Charlton Fair) was held regularly on 18 October each year, and retained its reputation for lawlessness; in 1833, for example, police arrested a swindler who had cheated several artillerymen. In 1857, following the abolition of nearby Greenwich Fair, Charlton Fair was described in the Morning Chronicle as "more like a carnival of the very worst and most vulgar class than any fair in the country." The Horn Fair was abolished, along with the livestock fairs of nearby Blackheath, by order of Henry Austin Bruce, the reforming Home Secretary, in 1872. In the early nineteenth century, Spencer Perceval, the only British Prime Minister to be assassinated, was buried at St Luke's church; Perceval's wife having been a member of the Maryon-Wilson family. In 1843, Charlton was the site of the death and burial of murdered civil servant Edward Drummond, whose assassination led to the establishment of the M'Naghten Rules for legal insanity.

Industrialisation
The flat land adjoining the Thames at Charlton Riverside has been a significant industrial area since Victorian times. The establishment of heavy industry centred on Charlton Pier, and led to a number of serious fires in the area in the mid 19th century. A notable establishment was the Siemens Brothers Telegraph Works (although largely in the parish of Woolwich) opened in 1863, which manufactured two new transatlantic cables in the 1880s, and contributed to PLUTO in World War 2. It was in this industrialised area that Charlton Athletic F.C. was established in 1905, before moving a short distance to The Valley in 1919.

20th century
From 1903 to 1913, the Italian writer Italo Svevo lived in a house on Charlton Church Lane which now bears a blue plaque in his honour. He had arrived there in his capacity as a director in a Trieste firm selling high-quality underwater paint for ships, on whose behalf he established a factory in Charlton's Anchor and Hope Lane, fulfilling a big contract with the British Royal Navy.

The non-ferrous foundry of J. Stone & Co moved to Charlton from Deptford in 1917, and produced 22,000 propellers for the Royal Navy during World War II (its products being fitted to battleships, aircraft carriers, cruisers and numerous smaller vessels), plus propellers and water-tight doors for RMS Queen Mary, RMS Queen Elizabeth and Royal Yacht Britannia. In 1963 Stone's marine propeller business merged with Manganese Bronze (also originally founded in Deptford, in 1882, before relocating to Millwall and then Birkenhead in 1941) and manufacture moved to Birkenhead. Stone Foundries still operates at Charlton, in a plant established in 1939 to produce aluminium and magnesium light alloy castings mainly for the aircraft industry, and production of nails and rivets continues at nearby Stone Fasteners.

The estates surrounding Charlton House were gradually broken up, and once the Maryon-Wilson family died out in 1925, the surviving open spaces were converted into public parks, two of which bear the family name. The house itself became the property of the local authority (currently the Royal Borough of Greenwich) and is used as a library and community centre. Maryon Park was used as the filming location for the pivotal murder scene in Michelangelo Antonioni's film Blow-Up (1966).

Local government
Charlton has formed part of the London Borough of Greenwich (now the Royal Borough of Greenwich) since its formation in 1965. Prior to that it was the easternmost part of the Metropolitan Borough of Greenwich, which succeeded the Lee, formerly Plumstead, District in 1900. Before the passage of the Metropolis Management Act 1855, Charlton was a civil parish in its own right.

Within the borough, Charlton is mainly covered by the ward of the same name. Charlton's riverside areas are part of the Woolwich Riverside ward, which also includes Woolwich Dockyard and Arsenal. Charlton has had only Labour councillors since 1971, while Woolwich Riverside has been Labour-controlled since its creation in 2002.

In the Westminster parliament, Charlton is covered by the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency, which has been represented by Matthew Pennycook since 2015. In the London Assembly, Charlton falls within the Greenwich and Lewisham constituency, which has been represented by Labour's Len Duvall since its creation in 2000.

Geography
The centre of Charlton, known as Charlton Village, lies on the edge of high ground about 7 miles east-south-east of central London, on the B210. West of the village the main road is called Charlton Road, and to the east, Charlton Park Road; the road itself is called 'The Village' in the village centre. A preserved model K2 red telephone box stands on Charlton Road. A minor road called Charlton Church Lane leads north down the hill from St Luke's Church to the station and the A206. Beyond the railway line lies the more heavily industrial riverside area referred to as New Charlton or Charlton Riverside.

Charlton is also home to several parks of varying features, namely Maryon Park, Maryon Wilson Park, Hornfair Park, named in reference to the old Horn Fair, and Charlton Park, which is largely made up of sports pitches or playing fields. Adjoining Maryon Park is the Gilbert's Pit Site of Special Scientific Interest, which was formerly a major site of sand extraction. Most of the parks lie in the area once covered by Hanging Wood.

The architecture of Charlton is diverse, offering an insight into how different parts of the area were built up, as it evolved from a Thames-side village into the London suburb that it is today. Charlton gave its name to Charlton House, and has links with the classic architect Inigo Jones, a street being named after him. Other streets in Charlton named after prominent figures or places include Montcalm, Henry, Prince of Wales, Canberra, and Kashmir. There are four main pubs within the vicinity of Charlton Village, including The Bugle Horn, a late 17th-century coaching inn. A major landmark on the north side of the village is The Valley stadium, home to Charlton Athletic F.C. since 1919.

New Charlton is the site of the southern end of the Thames Barrier, including the Barrier's main operational area and visitor centre. In 2013, a university technical college named Royal Greenwich UTC opened its campus nearby, under the auspices of the University of Greenwich. It is now a free school called Royal Greenwich Trust School.

The nearest areas are Blackheath, Eltham, Greenwich, Kidbrooke, Maze Hill, North Greenwich, Plumstead, Welling, Westcombe Park and Woolwich.

Demography
According to the 2011 UK census, the population of the Charlton ward was 14,385. 52.4% of the population was White and from a mainland British or Northern Irish background; the next largest ethnic groups were Black African (10.6%) and White (Other) (9.3%). The population included people of every British and Irish national identity except Cornish. 81.8% of residents spoke English as a first language; of the remainder, the greatest proportion spoke Nepalese. 47.2% of the population were Christians and 29.1% had no religion; 8.4% stated no religion, and the next largest religious group was Muslims with 6.8% of the population.

Of 5,739 households in the ward, 1,796 (31.3%) contained no adults in employment. Out of an active workforce of 6,698 people, 11.8% worked in wholesale, retail or auto repair; 11.4% in education, and 11.4% in health and social care. 22.8% of those employed worked in professional occupations 42.95 of people in the ward were aged 20–44.

Economy
Charlton Village retains a number of traditional businesses including an ironmonger. However, a much larger shopping area is located in New Charlton, to the north, including the Greenwich Shopping Park, the Peninsula Retail Park and Stone Lake Retail Park. A new Sainsbury's superstore opened in 2015 between Woolwich Road and Bugsby's Way. This new store replaced the Greenwich Peninsula branch, itself less than 15 years old and hailed at the time of its opening as a 'supermarket of the future'. Sainsbury's also has a large distribution centre in New Charlton; it was rebuilt and expanded in 2012 and re-opened by deputy prime minister Nick Clegg in 2013.

New Charlton is also home to the area's surviving heavy industry. In the 19th century the area was dominated by a large ropewalk and other maritime businesses. In recent years marine aggregates have predominated, including the major facility at Angerstein Wharf which incorporates the former Christie's Wharf site.

Until the 19th century, mineral extraction was a major local industry. The Valley stadium stands on the site of a large chalk pit, while Gilbert's Pit once supplied central London with most of its sand for domestic use. Gilbert's Pit is the only remnant of this industry which has not been built over.

Religious sites
The first recorded place of worship in Charlton is St Luke's Church, originally a chalk and flint building known to have existed in the 11th century. Rebuilt in the Jacobean style in 1630, it is now the parish church of a Church of England parish in the Modern Catholic tradition. The building was expanded with a new organ chamber and chancel in 1840, and new vestries in 1956. The church is listed as grade 2*, indicating a structure of 'more than special interest'. It is the burial place of several generations of the lords of the manor of Charlton, and of murdered British prime minister Spencer Perceval.

A second Anglican church, dedicated to St Thomas, and known as St Thomas Old Charlton, was built in 1848–50. Designed in the Romanesque style by architect Joseph Gwilt and his son John Sebastian Gwilt, it was consecrated on 31 July 1850. It is currently shared between the Anglican parish based at St Lukes and the British Orthodox Church congregation of St Thomas the Apostle; the building is grade II listed. A third Anglican church, dedicated to the Holy Trinity, was built in New Charlton in 1894, designed by John Rowland. It was listed in 1973, but was declared redundant in 1974 and demolished in 1975 to be replaced by a block of flats.

The Roman Catholic church of Our Lady of Grace was established by the Assumptionists Order. They settled in Charlton in 1903 after being expelled from France in 1900 due to suppression of Holy Orders. The first nuns moved into Highcombe and set up a mission in Charlton. The current church was built in 1905 and celebrated its centenary on 17 September 2005 with a concelebrated ecumenical mass, led by Archbishop Kevin McDonald and parish priest, Fr. Michael Leach. The church has strong historic links with the Irish community in south east London which are evident in the statue of Saint Patrick on display inside. The current presbytery was once the home of William Henry Barlow (1812–1902), the eminent 19th century engineer, who designed St Pancras railway station and for whom English Heritage have erected a blue plaque in recognition; it is also grade II listed.

Other churches in the area include Charlton Tabernacle of the New Testament Church of God on Charlton Church Lane; the Anglican church of St Richard; a United Reformed Church on Wyndcliff Road; and several evangelical free churches in and around New Charlton. Charlton also has a small mosque providing services for men and women in the Bareilvi Sufi tradition.

London Buses
Charlton is served by London Buses routes 53, 54, 161, 177, 180, 380, 422, 472, 486, N1 and N53.

London Underground
The nearest station is North Greenwich on the Jubilee line.

National Rail
The nearest station is Charlton for Southeastern services towards Barnehurst, Crayford, Dartford, Gillingham, London Cannon Street and London Charing Cross and Govia Thameslink Railway services to north Kent, as well as services to St Pancras, St Albans City, Luton and Luton Airport.

Road network
Charlton is located between the A206 to the north and the A207 to the south. The southern approach of the Blackwall Tunnel crossing of the River Thames is located to the west, while the South Circular Road lies some way to the east.

A Metropolitan Police car pound is located in west Charlton, off Eastcombe Avenue.

Sport

 * Charlton is best known as the home of Charlton Athletic F.C. The club plays at The Valley (a former chalk pit) situated to the north of the village, close to the main road and railway line.
 * The Rectory Field, until 2016 home of Blackheath Rugby Club, is on the border of Blackheath and Charlton.
 * Charlton Lido is south of Charlton village, at the western end of Hornfair Park.
 * The London Marathon course, which starts on Blackheath, loops eastwards through Charlton to Woolwich before turning west along Woolwich Road.

title: Charlton, London


text:
Talk:Ontology (information science)

Conflating ontology with ontology technology
This article conflates the two notions of "applied ontologies" vs "specific ontology technology". There are dozens of implementations of ontologies, not least of which Wikipedia's topic structure, that emphasize and exercise principles of "applied" ontologies, (as opposed to the philosophy of the application of those models, which is what the main Ontology article covers)

But the unifying theme of an ontology is that is a "model of a domain of knowledge that itself facilities the creation of new knowledge". Which is what separates it from a mere taxonomy or glossary in a given domain of knowledge. The main benifit that this article puts forward for an ontology is its helpfulness on getting lots of experts on the same page

But that is the main benefit of a taxonomy and an ontology should be doing more than that. The most substantial example of an ontology in the history of science is without question the periodic table of the elements.

Creating the table layout and maturing it, allowed chemists to infer that new, currently unknown, chemicals must exist and to make interesting predictions about their properties based on their locations in the table and their inferred atomic weights.

The fact that this article does not mention the periodic table is a little like having an article on this history of basketball and not including Wilt Chamberlain or the article on baseball not mentioning Babe Ruth. The periodic table is far and away the most important information ontology that humans ever created and is a central part of the shift away from alchemy towards chemistry, which itself was central to the movement to create modern science. Yet it is not mentioned even among the dozens of examples listed below.

Another huge victory for an ontology was are the Feynman Quark Diagrams, which was an ontology worthy of winning the Feynman the Nobel Prize. It is critical to point out that the most profound ontologies in the history of science have been pen-and-paper exercises, and remain visual drawings to this day. This is reflexive of the ongoing debate in the information science community between the effectiveness of formal ontological methods (which are not well discussed here, but are discussed in isolation) have failed to "catch on" the way that hashtags, wikipedia page name spaces and other "folksonomy" light-weight digital taxonomies have largely won out on information organization over more formal organization schemes like the dewey decimal system. (which BTW is also missing from this article... madness).

Instead of mentioning the tensions between formal and informal ontologies, this article emphasizes Google Knowledge Graph, which it little more IMHO than an "ontology parasite as a product" that has contributed almost nothing to the science of ontologies, and instead merely found a way to commercialize the ontology inherently found in the structure of wikipedia itself. Facebook chooses to call its forum product "groups" but the article on "groups" does not mention this in the introduction of its article. This endorsement of Googles products represents an inappropriate product endorsement that is only incidentally related to actual subject and should be removed.

I propose that I re-write the introduction to the article with these new emphasis. I also propose that the sections of the article which equate specific technologies (OWL etc) be re-written to emphasize that this is one technology attempt to generalize ontology principles, and not an exclusive one.

I will wait for reactions to this proposals over on Talk before I move forward with them... perhaps indefinitely because "who has time?" In that case, I encourage anyone else to attempt to address these underlying issues in the article.

Ftrotter (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree with your proposal. It is true that there are other meanings for the term "ontology". In philosophy especially it means something different. That is why there are multiple articles on the topic. This article is about the specific meaning the term has in computer science, library science, and artificial intelligence. If you want to make changes to it the starting point should be reliable sources in that field that support your position, not essays that state your individual opinions, even if they are well thought out opinions as I think yours are. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Rewrite or remove "Criticism" section
The content of this section either needs to be given some context or removed altogether since it adds little to no substance to the overall page. Even then, I'm not sure a rewrite would be worthwhile, given that neither of the two parts of this section amount to criticisms of ontologies. The first part refers to a debate over the utility of the realists' methodology for ontology engineering, while the second doesn't even pass as an actual criticism. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 20:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * After almost 2 weeks with no response, I went ahead and removed the section myself. I'll leave this open in case someone decides that they'd like to discuss the edit, but I do intend to close this to commenting within 2 weeks. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just looking at this talk page for the first time in a while and from what I remember, I felt the same about the "Criticism" section. I think I left it the last time I made any edits to this article because I didn't know of any good references for legitimate criticism (not saying there isn't any, I can think of several good critiques of specific technologies as well as the concept in general) hoping that someone would clean it up. But since no one did I think the correct thing to do was to just delete it until someone can write something encyclopedic. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Topic notes
Following are reminders for topics to look into for potential coverage within the article.

 * There are different types of ontologies including domain ontologies, generic ontologies, application ontologies and representational ontologies.

A note on terminology
"In computer science and information science, ontologies are used to formally represent knowledge within a domain." Would "knowledge" here not be better phrased as "information"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.193.98.171 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

 * I see that someone has preceded me here, saying just what I also think and have implemented as an edit to the lead. Information science is primarily about information, not so focused on knowledge as such. Well, I hope I am not treading on toes!Chjoaygame (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I see that these comments are old, but I'd still like to address them since nobody else did. The short answer to your question is 'no', simply because many people within the realms of philosophy, computer science, and information science would probably consider knowledge to be a type of information (i.e., information that we have confirmed to be both justifiable and true). If you're still interested, you may want to check out the DIKW Pyramid. SomeEnlightenedNarcissist (talk) 16:57, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with SomeEnlightenedNarcissist ontologies typically represent knowledge not information. Information is usually at the level of data bases or html files. Ontologies add a formal layer, usually grounded in Description Logic, which is a subset of First Order Logic. This often includes things like rules, subsumption hierarchies, etc. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 05:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Knowledge is what people "know" - in other words, knowledge is in people's brains and nowhere else.

All the other stuff that is not in people's brains is "information".

Thus:

Knowledge is NOT information.

What some people call "knowledge graphs", or "domain ontologies" are better termed "domain information structures". Ken Evans 19:29, 26 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by The ken evans (talk • contribs)

 * You would need to provide reliable sources for your opinion before it could be added to the article: see WP:RS. Of course, if most people generally agreed with your opinion then they would already be using your preferred terms instead of the terms that you wish to replace as well as other terms that contradict your opinion such as distributed cognition, distributed knowledge, knowledge base, knowledge management, knowledge tagging, personal knowledge base, social information processing, etc. Biogeographist (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

 * What a dumb comment! The verb "to know" is about what individual people have stored in their brains. All of the references that you use are just rhetorical devices that have been used by their originators to create misleading hype for their opinions. Ken Evans 13:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Mr. Evans, I suggest you familiarize yourself with some of the basic Wikipedia policies. First, we don't insult each other with name calling, we stick to issues about editing the articles and substantive discussion. Civility is one of the Five pillars that define what Wikipedia is about and how editors collaborate with each other. Second, the fact that you think people in the computer science and AI community such as the W3C, Google, Facebook, Stanford, Bioportal, and countless other leaders in the field use certain terminology incorrectly is irrelevant to Wikipedia. If you think that is the case then publish an article or blog or book or whatever and get those communities to start using other terminology. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia where we document certain topics based on reliable sources and terms like ontology and Knowledge Graph are used as described in this article every day by countless people in these fields including myself. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

mistaken IP edit
I undid an IP edit.

The undone edit replaced the word "fundamentally" with the word 'supposedly'. The edit was second-guessing the sentence that it changed. The sentence is "In computer science and information science, an ontology is a formal naming and definition of the types, properties, and interrelationships of the entities that really or fundamentally exist for a particular domain of discourse." The edit intended that the word "fundamentally" assumed something that was actually 'supposed'. But that reading is mistaken. The word "fundamentally" is explanatory of "really", not alternative to it. The "domain of discourse" has its suppositions, and they are implied in the sentence. Repetition of the notion of implication does not improve the sense of the sentence.Chjoaygame (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

undid a valuable edit that needs work before it can be accepted
I have just undone a good faith edit that should have been supplied with a reliable source or should have just appeared on this talk page. The edit is probably valuable, but it has not been given the nurture that it needs to prepare it to appear in the article. The article is not the place for unsourced discussion. I trust that Editor Pacerier will take my undo in good part. I am guessing that he has the knowledge to post something in the article with adequate sourcing. Alternatively he might find in the article a specific statement or two that he can tag with request for sourcing, or otherwise challenge. Please excuse my incomplete edit summary: I hit a wrong key.Chjoaygame (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ontology (information science). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080918063746/http://www.landcglobal.com/pages/linkbase.php to http://www.landcglobal.com/pages/linkbase.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110810084028/http://www.schemaweb.info/ to http://www.schemaweb.info/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217030517/http://oceanis.mm.di.uoa.gr/pened/papers/11-onto-user-final.pdf to http://oceanis.mm.di.uoa.gr/pened/papers/11-onto-user-final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

several minor edits, see talk page
I've added some citations, reworded a few sentences, pulled the etymology from the ontology(philosophy) page, and removed a few sentences to try to improve the flow. Since other articles have been merged into this one, it looks like it's in need of restructuring the sections. Also, I haven't touched the banner calling for more citations in the ontology editors section, and I haven't added any citations for the lengthy lists on editors, languages, applications, etc. I will try to keep working on this article to add any citations I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDontology (talk • contribs) 20:17, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Removed section
This section doesn't really belong here; I moved it from the article and tried to clean up parts that were not grammatical. A compressed few sentences might be appropriate at knowledge graph (information science) if someone can make sense of it. – SJ + 00:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Using a knowledge graph to build ontologies
In the case of integrating supplemental data sources, a knowledge graph formally represents the meaning involved in information by describing concepts, relationships between things, and categories of things. These embedded semantics with the data offer significant advantages such as reasoning over data and dealing with heterogeneous data sources. The rules can be applied on KG more efficiently using graph query. For example, the graph query does the data inference through the connected relations, instead of repeated full search of the tables in relational database. KG facilitates the integration of new heterogeneous data by just adding new relationships between existing information and new entities. This facilitation is emphasized for the integration with existing popular linked open data source such as Wikidata.

An SQL query is tightly coupled and rigidly constrained by datatype within the specific database. It can join tables and extract data from tables. The result is generally a table. A query can join tables by any columns which match by datatype. A SPARQL query is the standard query language and protocol for Linked Open Data on the Web. It is only loosely coupled with the database so that it facilitates the reusability and can extract data through the relations free from the datatype, and not only extract but also generate additional knowledge graph with more sophisticated operations (logic: transitive/symmetric/inverseOf/functional). The inference based query (query on the existing asserted facts without the generation of new facts by logic) can be fast comparing to the reasoning based query (query on the existing plus the generated/discovered facts based on logic).

The information integration of heterogeneous data sources in traditional database is intricate, which requires the redesign of the database table such as changing the structure and/or addition of new data. In the case of semantic query, a SPARQL query reflects the relationships between entities in a way that is aligned with human's understanding of the domain, so the semantic intention of the query can be seen on the query itself. Unlike SPARQL an SQL query reflects the specific structure of the database and is derived from matching the relevant primary and foreign keys of tables. Thereby, it loses the semantics of the query by missing the relationships between entities.

In the case of machine learning, A knowledge graph can help find latent connections among items, help improve precision, and help identify a user's intention which was hidden only by the ML output. A knowledge graph can help to extend a user's interests reasonably using various relation types, increasing diversity. It can also help to generate different knowledge presentations oriented by interested items, augmenting the dataset with the distance values between entities.

Editing Tools Section
Someone recently added a tool called Gra.fo to the section on editors. The reference given was this: https://gra.fo/ If you look at that site it is little more than a "There will eventually be a company site here" site. There are just a few pages with almost no content. I think this tool is clearly not notable so I removed it. But I think it points to a bigger issue, I think many of the tools in this section (another example would be JOE) are quite probably not notable. If the only documentation about an editor comes from their own company or papers written by the developers then IMO it is not notable and should be removed from the article. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Ontology editors
This table below has been moved here from due to lack of inline citations to independent reliable sources (NOT to the software's website) for each item in the table indicating why it should be included. Such citations should be added for each item, and extraneous items should be removed, before the table is returned to the article. Biogeographist (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Ontology (Information Science) vs. Ontology (Computer Science)
Some time ago, I renamed "Ontology (Information Science)" to "Ontology (Computer Science)". I did that based on research in Wikidata and Google searches.

I now have the following message on my talk page: "please revert the redirect from Ontology (Information Science) to Ontology (Information Science) and not Ontology (Computer science). The move is not sufficiently motivated by the "evidence" in wikidata. may I ask what has motivated your actions here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neumarcx (talk • contribs) 08:43, 6 June 2023 (UTC)"

Relevant diff by me: Special:Diff/1129153531: "The (computer science is the primary field, information secondary (references are in Wikidata).

Wikidata:
 * Q324254
 * There, under "studied by", both "computer science" and "information science" are listed, with references.
 * There are more refs to "computer science" than for "information science", which is why I picked "computer science" as the primary one for the article title.
 * In the body text, we could use "computer science and information science".

What is best and why? Any more refs than those I gave in Wikidata "studied by" section? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:17, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

 * thank you Dan, I would prefer if you could treat them separately. Information Science is not limited to Computers and hence has a different approach to ontologies. I would recommend to reinstall Ontology (Information Science) link and page. And create Ontology (Computer Science) as a new topic.
 * For now your change has created a plethora of misleading references. eg on the Ontology page we now have a reference to Ontology (Information Science). It's a bit of a mess. Please take note that Information Science and Computer Science are not the same disciplines. You can find further documentation on the respective wikipedia pages. Also they are not simply temporal transformations, like one followed and replaced the other.
 * So I would recommend to revert the change. You may want to add the Ontology (Computer Science) as a section in the Ontology (Information Science) page. Neumarcx (talk) 10:13, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * From perusal of the references I gave in Wikidata, I do not see two different fields "Ontology (Information science)" and "Ontology (Computer science)"; I see a single field. I mean this Wikidata item: Q324254.
 * For instance, http://web.dfc.unibo.it/buzzetti/IUcorso2007-08/mdidattici/ontology-definition-2007.htm says "In the context of computer and information sciences, an ontology defines a set of representational primitives with which to model a domain of knowledge or discourse." And https://www.datastory.org/services/glossary/knowledge-organization/ontology-information-science says "In computer science and information science, an ontology is a way of keeping track of how things are interrelated by defining ways of categorizing and linking subjects. Ontology development encompasses representation, formal naming and definition of the categories, properties and relations between the concepts, data and entities."
 * Which sources make you think there are two different fields, "Ontology (computer science)" and "Ontology (information science)"? What would the difference consist in? --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You argue against your own case. If they are the same (and they are certainly not) why did you change it in the first place. Information science is an academic field that concerns itself primarily with aspects of information. It may make use of some tools that are related to computer science and engineering. The page clearly was about Information Science and its relationship to Ontology. Now you have just renamed Ontology (Information Science) to Ontology (Computer Science) for no good reason. The page is still about Ontology (Information Science).
 * Again please revert this change and create a new page for Ontology (Computer Science) if this is your primary objective. You can provide links from the Ontology page to both pages Ontology (Information Science) and Ontology (Computer Science). Neumarcx (talk) 06:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * What sources can I read to arrive to your conclusions? My sources are plentifully linked from Q324254.
 * I do not say that information science and computer science are the same field (I have a master's in computer science); I am saying that, as far as my sources indicate, these two fields have an overlapping subject of "ontology"; there is a separate subject "ontology (philosophy)".
 * As to why I renamed the article: it is because more sources indicated "computer science" to be the primary field for ontology, and these sources are in Q324254.
 * Again, just to be on the same page, what are some of the best sources you recommend for me to read to arrive at your view? --Dan Polansky (talk)
 * As for the sources linked from Wikipedia article (I did not so far add or remove any sources to it), I clicked on https://iaoa.org/isc2012/docs/Guarino2009_What_is_an_Ontology.pdf and it speaks of ontology in "computer science". Someone might want to systematically go through the WP-linked sources and see whether they tend to link ontology to computer science or information science. The first step might be to find at least one source that links ontology to "information science" without mentioning "computer science". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * You should read your own references. The paper distinguishes between Ontology and "an ontology".
 * But this is already another discussion. Here you have just renamed an already existing topic namely Ontology (Information Science) with a new topic Ontology (Computer Science). There certainly are overlaps and you could add Ontology (Logic), Ontology (Semantics) or Ontology (Natural Sciences). These could all be valid new pages but you can't just rename an existing topic and claim one wins over the other and reuse the entire content and relabel it. You could also ask how does it differ to other concepts in Information Science such as taxonomies, schemas and thesauri. All very much established ways to structure and organize knowledge. Topics that have been well adopted in Computer Science but in no way have been a contribution by Computer Science itself.
 * If you want to learn about Information Science please consult its wikipedia page or the ASIS&T reference page https://www.asist.org/about/what-is-information-science/
 * Again this is not about the merits of a new page called Ontology (Computer Science) but about renaming an existing wikipedia page that was in use for over 20 years and renaming it from Ontology (Information Science) to new name in October 2022. There is ongoing activity in Information Science on the topic with a different focus to other disciplines. Neumarcx (talk) 12:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The above statements do not trace to any sources, and sound implausible on the face of it. In particular, I do not believe there are so many different subjects of "ontology" to be covered by Wikipedia.
 * I still do not have a single reference on "ontology in information science" that does not at the same time mention "computer science".
 * Let's play the sourcing game, shall we. I have no reason to believe statements that sound implausible to me and trace to no sources. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * this is not a game Dan. you are deliberately falsifying statements. the page is about Ontology (Information Science) as is clearly obvious. (Neumarcx) (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * here are a few reference for you Dan:
 * The double role of ontologies in information science research.
 * Frederico Fonseca
 * Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
 * First published: 26 February 2007
 * https://asistdl.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.20565
 * Ontologies.
 * B. C. Vickery
 * Journal of Information Science
 * Volume 23 Issue 4, August 1997
 * https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/016555159702300402?journalCode=jisb
 * Ontology in Information Science.
 * book edited by Ciza Thomas
 * March 8th, 2018
 * https://www.intechopen.com/books/5844
 * https://www.intechopen.com/books/5844

 * Concepts and semantic relations in information science.
 * Wolfgang G. Stock
 * First published: 15 September 2010
 * Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology
 * https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/asi.21382

 * Neumarcx (talk) 17:27, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
 * (Outdent) Thank you. We have now established that some sources link ontology to "information science". This is perhaps not surprising given that ontologies can be viewed to some extent as an extension or refinement of thesauri in information retrieval, and these seem to be studied by information science. We also have that many sources link ontology to "computer science"; this is not surprising given a key defining feature of ontology are formal axioms that can be processed by machines. The article says, without that being result of my intervention, that "In computer science and information science, an ontology [...]". I rest my case that there is only one subject, whether it is called "Ontology (information science)" or "Ontology (computer science)". I used the technique of Wikidata to arrive at the conclusion that "computer science" is better to be taken as the primary field. Above, I gave a source from the article that indicates "computer science" as the field. And what makes ontology different to thesauri from information science is very computer science-like: it is representations of axioms via symbolic logic to be processed by machines/computers, which bear almost no relation to the investigations of thesauri.
 * If we can agree that we are dealing with only one subject and that we want to find the primary field while accepting that there is also a secondary field, the question is whether we can agree on investigation methods of finding the answer. I propose that Google searches are one of the methods, as well as investigation of authoritative sources linked from Wikidata, and perhaps original arguments about what is more information science-like and what is more computer science-like.
 * As for Google search results, I added some of the results to Wikidata some time ago, and they are still linked from there.
 * As for Wikidata-linked sources as identifiers, I will note WordNet: http://wordnet-rdf.princeton.edu/id/06172695-n, "ontology (computer science) a rigorous and exhaustive organization of some knowledge domain that is usually hierarchical and contains all the relevant entities and their relations". I will note Italian https://thes.bncf.firenze.sbn.it/termine.php?id=45879, Ontologia , Ontologie formali, where Italian Informatica is computer science, not information science, despite appearances. LCSH https://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh2005006014.html says that Ontologies (Information retrieval) are under the broader term of Data structures (Computer science). --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank You Dan, before we continue I like to emphasize that we will have to set the page back to Ontology (Information Science) more in line with the Semantic Web vision.
 * I believe what you refer to is something more like an Expert System type AI ontology. These two topics have quite different and have let to a number of new efforts like Linked Data and Open Linked Data. Another example would be wikidata.
 * I have to insist and ask you to create a new page called Ontology (Computer Science) if this is your primary interest. Again the two are quite different philosophies that have let to significant disputes about the validity of approach. Even in Computer Science there are different schools of thought.
 * If I understand you correctly I can go ahead and revert your move to rename the page Ontology (Information Science) to Ontology (Computer Science).
 * Please go ahead and create a new page dedicated to Ontology (Computer Science). Neumarcx (talk) 13:40, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * just had a chance to make the change. It might be best to create a section about formal ontologies in the page, and mention the aspect you have mentioned as axiomatisation. This probably best describes the use of Ontology you had in mind. In the long term a new page might be best that is dedicated to the topic of Ontology (Computer Science) if you can substantiate the creation of a new page. Neumarcx (talk) 15:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I find the above unconvincing, poorly sourced, ignoring all my sources, research and arguments, and especially making the unsubstantiated and implausible claim that there are in fact two subjects or even more. I am not sure what the status quo ante on the page is; it depends on whether my move happened long enough time ago, and I am unsure about Wikipedia conventions in this regard. I will ponder next most productive steps, to perhaps take later; I may have to give up and pursue more productive aims, but let us see. From my best understanding, the page belongs to "Ontology (computer science)" much more than "Ontology (information science)".
 * Here, for reference, collection of my sources, in addition to WordNet, etc. already posted:
 * Toward Principles for the Design of Ontologies Used for Knowledge Sharing by Thomas R. Gruber, Stanford Knowledge Systems Laborator, 1993, tomgruber.org
 * Ontology Development 101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology by Natalya F. Noy and Deborah L. McGuinness, Stanford University, perso.liris.cnrs.fr
 * ONTOLOGIES IN COMPUTER SCIENCE by Diana Man -- refers to Tom Gruber
 * What is an ontology? by Christopher A. Welty, uvm.edu -- in computer science, "a specification of a conceptualization."
 * An Introduction to Ontologies and Ontology Engineering, Catherine Roussey, Francois Pinet, Myoung Ah Kang, and Oscar Corcho, oa.upm.es
 * 3.1 Ontology in Philosophy and Computer Science, open.hpi.de
 * Ontology (computer science), academickids.com
 * What is Ontology?, ontologyworks.com
 * --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you have missed a lot about the discussion in the Semantic Web community. with regards to the Semantic Web you could argue that Ontologies have failed and data graphs have prevailed.
 * But again this discussion is not directly relevant to the page Ontology (Information Science). There exists an activity in Information Science that develops and researches and expands on ontologies. That's what the page is about. For a long time Computer Science has ignored ontologies and still does. That said there is absolutely a case for formal ontologies. A discussion that is most likely related to the field of Logic. For example you can develop an ontology with full first order logic axiomatisation. Things that have been down for a very long time in the expert system community. Now I believe this is use of the word ontology that is your primary concern.
 * I will continue to monitor this page and will try to further delineate the difference. Also Information Science borrows significantly from other Scientific fields such as sociology and philosophy.
 * Also please feel free to contact me to further discuss this in greater detail. Neumarcx (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Ontology (information science)


text:
Georgios Papandreou

Georgios Papandreou (Γεώργιος Παπανδρέου Geórgios Papandréou; 13 February 1888 – 1 November 1968) was a Greek politician, the founder of the Papandreou political dynasty. He served three terms as prime minister of Greece (1944–1945, 1963, 1964–1965). He was also deputy prime minister from 1950 to 1952, in the governments of Nikolaos Plastiras and Sofoklis Venizelos. He served numerous times as a cabinet minister, starting in 1923, in a political career that spanned more than five decades.

Early life
Papandreou was born at Kalentzi, in the Achaea region of the northern Peloponnese. He was the son of Father Andreas Stavropoulos, an Orthodox archpriest (protopresvyteros). His last name is derived from his father's Christian name and the word papas "priest". He studied law in Athens and political science in Berlin. His political philosophy was heavily influenced by German social democracy. As a result, he was adamantly opposed to the monarchy and supported generous social policies, but he was also extremely anti-communist (and specifically against the KKE's policies in Greece). As a young man, he became involved in politics as a supporter of the Liberal leader Eleftherios Venizelos, who made him governor of Chios after the Balkan Wars. One of his brothers, Nikos, was killed in the Battle of Kilkis-Lachanas.

He married twice. His first wife was Sofia Mineyko, a Polish national, daughter of Zygmunt Mineyko and paternal granddaughter of Stanislaw Mineyko (1802–1857). Their son Andreas Papandreou was born in Chios in 1919. His second wife was the actress Cybele Andrianou and their son was named George Papandreou.

Political career
During the political crisis surrounding Greece's entry into the First World War, Papandreou was one of Venizelos's closest supporters against the pro-German monarch, King Konstantínos I. When Venizelos in 1916 left Athens, Papandreou accompanied him to Crete, and then went to Lesbos, where he mobilised anti-monarchist supporters in the islands and rallied support for Venizelos's insurgent pro-Allied government in Thessaloniki.

In the 1920 general election, Papandreou unsuccessfully ran as an independent liberal in the Lesbos constituency. In 1921 as a lawyer he defended Alexandros Papanastasiou, during a trial for his critic against King Konstantínos. Because of an article calling on King Konstantínos to abdicate, he was imprisoned by the royalist regime and later he narrowly escaped assassination from royalist extremists in Lesbos.

From January to October 1923, he served as interior minister in the cabinet of Stylianos Gonatas. In the December 1923 elections, he was elected as a Venizelist Liberal Party member of parliament for Lésvos, and served as finance minister for just 11 days in June 1925, education minister in 1930–1932 and transport minister in 1933. As minister of education he reformed the Greek school system and built many schools for the children of refugees of the Greco-Turkish War. During the dictatorship of Pangalos, he was again imprisoned.

In 1935, he set up the Democratic Socialist Party of Greece. The same year, a royalist coup by General Geórgios Kondylis took place for the re-establishment of monarchy and he was placed in internal exile. A lifelong opponent of the Greek monarchy, he was again exiled in 1938 by the Greek royalist dictator Ioannis Metaxas.

Following the Axis occupation of Greece in the Second World War, he was imprisoned by the Italian authorities. He later fled to the Middle East and joined the predominantly Venizelist government-in-exile based in the Kingdom of Egypt. With British support, King Geórgios II appointed him as prime minister, and under his premiership took place the Lebanon conference (May 1944) and later the Caserta Agreement (September 1944), in an attempt to stop the crisis in Greece and the conflicts between EAM and non-EAM forces (a prelude of the civil war) and establish a national unity government.

Liberation of Greece and the Dekemvrianá events

After the evacuation of Greece by the Axis powers, he entered Athens (October 1944) as Prime Minister of the Greek government-in-exile with some units of the Greek Army and the allied British. During the same month, he became prime minister in the, which had succeeded the Greek government-in-exile. He tried to normalise the highly polarised situation between the EAM and non-EAM forces, collaborating mainly with Lieutenant-General Sir Ronald Scobie, who was, after the Caserta agreement, responsible for all the Allied forces.

Although he resigned in 1945, after the Dekemvriana events, he continued to hold high office. From 1946–1952 he served as labour minister, supplies minister, education minister, finance minister and public order minister. In 1950–1952, he was also deputy prime minister.

The 1952–1961 period was a very difficult one for Papandreou. The liberal political forces in the Kingdom of Greece were gravely weakened by internal disputes and suffered electoral defeat from the conservatives. Papandreou continuously accused Sofoklis Venizelos for these maladies, considering his leadership dour and uninspiring.

Founder of the Centre Union and later confrontation with the Palace
In 1961, Papandreou revived Greek liberalism by founding the Centre Union Party, a confederation of old liberal Venizelists, social democrats and dissatisfied conservatives. After the elections of "violence and fraud" of 1961, Papandreou declared a "Relentless Struggle" against the right-wing ERE and the "parakrátos" (deep state) of the right.

Finally, his party won the elections of November 1963 and those of 1964, the second with a landslide majority. His progressive policies as premier aroused much opposition in conservative circles, as did the prominent role played by his son Andreas Papandreou, whose policies were seen as being considerably left of center. Andreas disagreed with his father on many important issues, and developed a network of political organizations, the Democratic Leagues (Dimokratikoi Syndesmoi) to lobby for more progressive policies. He also managed to take control of the Center Union's youth organization, EDIN.

Papandreou had opposed the Zürich and London Agreement, which led to the foundation of the Republic of Cyprus. Following clashes between the Greek and Turkish communities, his government sent a Greek army division to the island.

King Constantine II openly opposed Papandreou's government, and there were frequent ultra-rightist plots in the Army, which destabilised the government. Finally, the King engineered a split in the Centre Union, and in July 1965, in a crisis known as the Apostasia or Iouliana, he dismissed the government following a dispute over control of the Ministry of Defence.

After the April 1967 military coup by the Colonels' junta led by George Papadopoulos, Papandreou was arrested. Papandreou died under house arrest in November 1968. His funeral became the occasion for a massive anti-dictatorship demonstration. He is interred at the First Cemetery of Athens, alongside his son Andreas.

Legacy

Papandreou was regarded as one of the best orators in the Greek political scene and a persistent fighter for Democracy. During the junta and after his death he was often referred to affectionately as "ο Γέρος της Δημοκρατίας" (o Géros tis Dimokratías, the old man of Democracy). Since his grandson George A. Papandreou entered politics, most Greek writers use Γεώργιος (Geórgios) to refer to the grandfather and the less formal Γιώργος (Giórgos) to refer to the grandson.

Works

 * The Liberation of Greece, Athens, 1945

Decorations and awards
In 1965, the University of Belgrade awarded him an honorary doctorate.

title: Georgios Papandreou


text:
User talk:Elbibop48

Hello there Elbibop48, welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you ever need editing help visit How does one edit a page or how to format them visit our manual of style. Experiment at Sandbox. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Naming conventions. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Help or add a question to the Village pump. If you ever think a page or image should be deleted, please list it at the votes for deletion page. There is also a votes for undeletion page if you want to retrieve something that you think should not have been deleted.

I noticed your contributions to Panama and the internal links you added. Internal links are done with target, not with the URL; and redirect pages are done by writing #REDIRECT target. I already fixed those you did incorrectly. andy 10:27, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

title: User talk:Elbibop48