Re: [Wikidata] Result format change for WDQS JSON query output

2019-06-21 Thread Stas Malyshev
Hi!

> from 2014, so I will research which form is more correct. But for now I
> would recommend to update the tools to recognize that these literals now
> may have type. If I discover that the standards or accepted practices
> recommend otherwise, I'll update further. You can also watch
> https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T225996 for final resolution of this.

I surveyed existing practices of SPARQL endpoints and tools, and looks
like the accepted practice is to omit the datatypes for such literals
even within the context of RDF 1.1. Example:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JENA-1077
I will adjust the code in Blazegraph accordingly, so WDQS will comply
with this practice (i.e. result format will be as it was before). This
will be implemented in coming days.
Sorry again for the disruption.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata


[Wikidata] Result format change for WDQS JSON query output

2019-06-20 Thread Stas Malyshev
Hi!

Due to upgrade to more current version of Sesame toolkit, the format of
JSON output of Wikidata Query Service has changed slightly[1]. The
change is that plain literals (ones that do not have explicit data type,
like "string" or "string"@de) now have "datatype" field. The language
literals will have type
http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#langString and the
non-language ones http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string. This is in
accordance with RDF 1.1 standard [2], where all literals have data type
(even though for these types it is implicit).

I apologize for not noting this in advance - though I knew this change
in the standard happened, I did not foresee it will also carry over to
the JSON output format. I am not sure yet which output form is actually
correct, since standards seem to be conflicting, maybe due to the fact
that JSON results standard hasn't been updated since 2013 and RDF 1.1 is
from 2014, so I will research which form is more correct. But for now I
would recommend to update the tools to recognize that these literals now
may have type. If I discover that the standards or accepted practices
recommend otherwise, I'll update further. You can also watch
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T225996 for final resolution of this.

[1] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T225996
[2] https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-Graph-Literal
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata