Hi!
What about people who were born in the 18th-century? We know they are
dead, but their death is not recorded and we only know when they were
last active. How do you set that end date?
That's what somevalue/unknown is for.
--
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org
For the unknown date case, I also used some imprecise dates in the past, if
you set date withe a precision of the century around the last time it wa
known active for example, you get something semantically correct and that
is probably esaier to handle in queries (athough the way to handle
Hi!
Actually I think that having no value for the end date qualifier
probably means that it has not ended yet. There is no other way to
But that's what no end date also means, in 99% cases where there's start
date and no end date. Let's see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q30#P35 -
does it say
What about people who were born in the 18th-century? We know they are dead,
but their death is not recorded and we only know when they were last
active. How do you set that end date?
On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 8:36 AM, Stas Malyshev smalys...@wikimedia.org
wrote:
Hi!
Actually I think that
Hoi,
There are two ways of doing that.. You can assume given average age and
date of birth in what century someone died. This is something you can
specify or you can state that the date of death as unknown. Now that IS a
valid way of doing this. However it does not mean that 17th centrury people
Hoi,
It would make sense to have a bot run and add dates of novalue for dob dod
where we know that people must be dead.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 April 2015 at 08:54, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi,
There are two ways of doing that.. You can assume given average age and
Hey folks :)
Here's your summary of what's been happening around Wikidata over the past
week. Enjoy!
Discussions
- RfC: Opting out of Global sysops 2
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Opting_out_of_Global_sysops_2
Events
Hi!
It would make sense to have a bot run and add dates of novalue for dob
dod where we know that people must be dead.
That would actually be opposite of what we want, since novalue would
mean they were not born and are not dead. I think you meant unknown
for date of death, in which case it
On 2015-04-23 01:21, Stas Malyshev wrote:
Hi!
Careful, this is one of the most debated and dramatic style issues
after
citation format!
Actual transliteration should clearly follow scientific/ISO standards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_transliteration_of_Cyrillic .
Well,
Could you not add the last active date as a qualifier to the somevalue
death date?
In general uncertainty in dates are not so easily entered. Born 1969 or
1970 cannot be entered as 1969 with uncertainty decade since that becomes
1960s (at least that is what is shown to readers) so the only legit
On 26.04.2015 22:16, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I regularly query for for instance claim[31] ie any instance of
whatever... I would also query for the existence of a date of death in a
similar way. for me a claim with a whatever it is that says that there
is no value would be a positive result
Hoi,
Let us be clear that what whatever Wikipedia does is for that Wikipedia to
decide. It does not follow automatically that it must be the label for that
language..
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 April 2015 at 14:22, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2015-04-23 01:21, Stas Malyshev
On 26.04.2015 22:28, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
It is a matter of perspective. From my perspective a value exists or
not. Depending on that I may want to process. When you state novalue
there is a value of novalue and that is not the same as there not being
a value in the first place.
Ah, I
On 2015-04-26 22:33, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi
My point is that it is not a given that we should follow any WIkipedia
for anything. Also the point of romanisation of Russian is not for the
benefit of Russian speakers, it is for the speakers of English.
Thanks,
GerardM
On one hand, yes.
Hoi,
grin ISO is a reliable source; it is THE standard /grin Wikipedia is
definitely not a standard by its own admission.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 April 2015 at 22:37, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru wrote:
On 2015-04-26 22:33, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi
My point is that it is not a
When we use auto transliteration to generate English labels then I think we
should follow the practice of the English Wikipedia with other
transliterations demoted to aliases.
Similarly auto generated German labels should follow the transliteration
practices in the German wikipedia.
When we use
Hoi,
I regularly query for for instance claim[31] ie any instance of whatever...
I would also query for the existence of a date of death in a similar way.
for me a claim with a whatever it is that says that there is no value
would be a positive result and I would not consider it for any
Hoi,
It is a matter of perspective. From my perspective a value exists or not.
Depending on that I may want to process. When you state novalue there is a
value of novalue and that is not the same as there not being a value in the
first place.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 April 2015 at 22:25, Markus
On 2015-04-26 22:26, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
Let us be clear that what whatever Wikipedia does is for that
Wikipedia to decide. It does not follow automatically that it must be
the label for that language..
Thanks,
GerardM
This is fine with me, but using ISO is really really weird
Hoi
My point is that it is not a given that we should follow any WIkipedia for
anything. Also the point of romanisation of Russian is not for the benefit
of Russian speakers, it is for the speakers of English.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 April 2015 at 22:30, Yaroslav M. Blanter pute...@mccme.ru
Hoi,
As you know I am not a fan at all about these special values. I can follow
logic but do not need to agree.
When novalue is not to be seen as a value. What is the point.. The point
is to state there is no value right ? .. and that makes it of value. Right
ahum, I admit it is confusing but is
Hoi,
A fine position statement ... but what is your argument ? WHY
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 April 2015 at 23:15, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote:
When we use auto transliteration to generate English labels then I think
we should follow the practice of the English Wikipedia with
Quick reply to Denny and Gerard:
@Denny: I think it makes sense to treat qualifiers under a closed-world
semantics. That is: what is not there can safely be assumed to be false.
In this I agree with Gerard. OTOH, I don't think it hurts very much to
add them anyway.
@Gerard: Please note that
Hi!
My point is that it is not a given that we should follow any WIkipedia
for anything. Also the point of romanisation of Russian is not for the
benefit of Russian speakers, it is for the speakers of English.
Same people may speak more than one language. And for English speakers,
letters
24 matches
Mail list logo
