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 that not the point. ?
It is similar to a lot of referenced statements that when you check them
are NOT what is stated at all.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 26 April 2015 at 22:37, Markus Krötzsch <mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org>
wrote:
> 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 see. I think any query interface should allow you to find both:
> things with a novalue-claim and things with no claim at all. You can then
> pick your perspective on these two things as you like.
>
> However, it would be an error to treat "novalue" as a kind of "some
> value", and it would be an even bigger error to treat "novalue" as a
> specific value (that can be equal to other such values). For example, a WDQ
> tree query should never go through "novalue" (and not even through a
> "somevalue" a.k.a. "unknownvalue"), as I am sure you will agree.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Markus
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
