Hoi,
For me it is obvious ... this search for perfection is an enemy of what is
good in Wikidata. It destroys the results of queries. It is not usable and
it is only of use in a very small percentage of cases.
Compare it with the "female mayor" question. Our issue is that we have not
enough data in the first place and we should concentrate on making things
easier to comprehend not weigh it down with the balast of discussions
elsewhere.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 23 April 2015 at 11:56, Thomas Douillard <thomas.douill...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> In wikidata, the absence of a claim about something cannot mean the claim
> has no couterpart in reality, as Wikidata is an will always be incomplete.
>
> For example if we have a series, maybe finished, maybe unfinished, we wil
> have claims that says:
>
> Episode 2 follows Episode 1
> Episode 3 follows Episode 2
> ...
>
> If for some reason we're sure that the series is other, we can state
> no value follows Episode 2
>
> Which means "We're sure the series is other".
>
> Otherwise this means "Wikidata do not know", for some reason there could
> be a following episode but noone updated Wikidata yet, for example.
>
> 2015-04-23 11:33 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Sorry for being dense.. What is wrong with there being no value ? Having
>> a "no value" is imho understanding only a complication of saying nothing...
>> Why not say nothing in the first place ?
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>> On 22 April 2015 at 21:52, Markus Krötzsch <mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Thomas,
>>>
>>> On 22.04.2015 20:06, Thomas Douillard wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi, there is items about Wikibase data model in Wikidata (created by me,
>>>> but not only)
>>>>
>>>> If I understand correctly, they could be cited in the semantic web as
>>>> https://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q19798647
>>>>
>>>
>>> "No value" is exactly that: not a value. It should not be confused with
>>> a (definite) value that is used with claims (as the item description seems
>>> to suggest). The reason why we introduced "no value" was to be able to say
>>> this without resorting to a "special value" to represent this.
>>>
>>> You can also find some rationale about this in our article "Wikidata: a
>>> free collaborative knowledgebase" (see
>>> https://ddll.inf.tu-dresden.de/web/Article4002/en). Basically, the main
>>> point is that, if you are querying for two people with a common child, you
>>> wouldn't want to get pairs of people who both have "novalue" as a value for
>>> "child". The same is true for "some value" (sometimes referred to as
>>> "unknown value") -- again, if this would be a definite "special" value, and
>>> be treated like a value in queries, it would lead to wrong results.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Markus
>>>
>>>
>>>> (If they are kept /o\)
>>>>
>>>> Tom²
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
