Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Thad Guidry]

Further idea...
They were called Mutexes in Freebase and actually lived as part of its data.
In fact, you could actually use those same rules in WD if you wanted to.
In Freebase, if someone typed or classed a Musical Artist as a fictional
character also...they would immediately get a warning in the GUI that they
could not type as Fictional Character also.

"Musical Artist != Fictional Character"
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/freebase-discuss/h0LgDZIL6N4



On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:38 PM Thad Guidry  wrote:

> Databases use schema but that doesn't mean they make sense for Humans all
> the time.
> Rules are typically used to find gaps in the data and the schema.
>
> In Freebase, we decided to handle things such as this with Rules (as Peter
> leans towards), where the community would help with developing them and
> then we'd generate lists to have folks work on correcting the wrongful data
> or schema.  It was all Class based rules since Freebase had multiple
> Classes that could be applied to a topic or entity.
>
> I don't like Instance Of and never use it...ever...and never assert
> statements about it, or ask questions involving Instance Of  with
> SPARQL...I find that WD life is easier without it.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:17 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
> pfpschnei...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Although there is no formal problem here, care does have to be taken when
> modelling entities that are to be considered as both classes and
> non-classes
> (or, and especially, metaclasses and non-metaclass classes).  It is all too
> easy for even experienced modellers to make mistakes.  The problem is worse
> when the modelling formalism is weak (as the Wikidata formalism is) and
> thus
> does not itself provide much support to detect mistakes.  The problem is
> even
> worse when the modelling methodology often does not provide much
> description
> of the entities (as is the case in Wikidata).
>
>
> The paper that Denny cites proposes that each entity be given a level (0
> for
> non-class entities and some number greater than 0 for classes).  The
> instance
> of relationship is limited so that it only relates entities to entities
> that
> are a single level higher and the subclass of relationship is limited to
> that
> it only relates entities within a single level.  This rules out the
> problematic earthquake (Q7944), which used to be both an instance and a
> subclass of natural disaster (Q8065), and white (Q23444), which is
> currently
> both an instance and a subclass of color (Q1075).  Although neither of
> these
> situations is a formal failure they are both almost certainly modelling
> failures.
>
> It is, however, useful to be able to model entities that do not fit into
> this
> modelling methodology, like the class of all classes.  These exceptions
> are, I
> think, rare.
>
>
> Anyway, what this points out is that there are problems in how Wikidata
> models
> the world.  Better guidelines on how to model on Wikidata would be useful.
> Strict rules, however, can easily prevent modelling what Wikidata should be
> modelling.
>
> My suggestion is that Wikidata classes should have more information
> associated
> with them.   It should be possible for a modeller to easily determine how a
> class is supposed to be used.  This is not currently possible for color
> and I
> think is the main source of the problems with color.
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>
>
>
> On 01/09/2017 10:28 AM, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
> > I agree with Peter here. Daniel's statement of "Anything that is a
> subclass of
> > X, and at the same an instance of Y, where Y is not "class", is
> problematic."
> > is simply too strong. The classical example is Harry the eagle, and eagle
> > being a species.
> >
> > The following paper has a much more measured and subtle approach to this
> question:
> >
> >
> http://snap.stanford.edu/wikiworkshop2016/papers/Wiki_Workshop__WWW_2016_paper_11.pdf
> >
> > I still think it is potentially and partially too strong, but certainly
> much
> > better than Daniel's strict statement.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:58 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > > wrote:
> >
> > On 01/09/2017 07:20 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
> > > Am 09.01.2017 um 04:36 schrieb Markus Kroetzsch:
> > >> Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but
> Wikidata is
> > about all
> > >> of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of
> Iberia" is
> > >> still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have its own
> > properties etc.
> > >> I would therefore say (without having checked the page):
> > >>
> > >> King of Iberiainstance of  office
> > >> King of Iberiasubclass of  king
> > >
> > > To be semantically strict, you would need to have two separate
> items,
> > one for
> > > the office, and one for the class. Because the 

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Thad Guidry]

Databases use schema but that doesn't mean they make sense for Humans all
the time.
Rules are typically used to find gaps in the data and the schema.

In Freebase, we decided to handle things such as this with Rules (as Peter
leans towards), where the community would help with developing them and
then we'd generate lists to have folks work on correcting the wrongful data
or schema.  It was all Class based rules since Freebase had multiple
Classes that could be applied to a topic or entity.

I don't like Instance Of and never use it...ever...and never assert
statements about it, or ask questions involving Instance Of  with
SPARQL...I find that WD life is easier without it.



On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 1:17 PM Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschnei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Although there is no formal problem here, care does have to be taken when
> modelling entities that are to be considered as both classes and
> non-classes
> (or, and especially, metaclasses and non-metaclass classes).  It is all too
> easy for even experienced modellers to make mistakes.  The problem is worse
> when the modelling formalism is weak (as the Wikidata formalism is) and
> thus
> does not itself provide much support to detect mistakes.  The problem is
> even
> worse when the modelling methodology often does not provide much
> description
> of the entities (as is the case in Wikidata).
>
>
> The paper that Denny cites proposes that each entity be given a level (0
> for
> non-class entities and some number greater than 0 for classes).  The
> instance
> of relationship is limited so that it only relates entities to entities
> that
> are a single level higher and the subclass of relationship is limited to
> that
> it only relates entities within a single level.  This rules out the
> problematic earthquake (Q7944), which used to be both an instance and a
> subclass of natural disaster (Q8065), and white (Q23444), which is
> currently
> both an instance and a subclass of color (Q1075).  Although neither of
> these
> situations is a formal failure they are both almost certainly modelling
> failures.
>
> It is, however, useful to be able to model entities that do not fit into
> this
> modelling methodology, like the class of all classes.  These exceptions
> are, I
> think, rare.
>
>
> Anyway, what this points out is that there are problems in how Wikidata
> models
> the world.  Better guidelines on how to model on Wikidata would be useful.
> Strict rules, however, can easily prevent modelling what Wikidata should be
> modelling.
>
> My suggestion is that Wikidata classes should have more information
> associated
> with them.   It should be possible for a modeller to easily determine how a
> class is supposed to be used.  This is not currently possible for color
> and I
> think is the main source of the problems with color.
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>
>
>
> On 01/09/2017 10:28 AM, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
> > I agree with Peter here. Daniel's statement of "Anything that is a
> subclass of
> > X, and at the same an instance of Y, where Y is not "class", is
> problematic."
> > is simply too strong. The classical example is Harry the eagle, and eagle
> > being a species.
> >
> > The following paper has a much more measured and subtle approach to this
> question:
> >
> >
> http://snap.stanford.edu/wikiworkshop2016/papers/Wiki_Workshop__WWW_2016_paper_11.pdf
> >
> > I still think it is potentially and partially too strong, but certainly
> much
> > better than Daniel's strict statement.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:58 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > > wrote:
> >
> > On 01/09/2017 07:20 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
> > > Am 09.01.2017 um 04:36 schrieb Markus Kroetzsch:
> > >> Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but
> Wikidata is
> > about all
> > >> of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of
> Iberia" is
> > >> still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have its own
> > properties etc.
> > >> I would therefore say (without having checked the page):
> > >>
> > >> King of Iberiainstance of  office
> > >> King of Iberiasubclass of  king
> > >
> > > To be semantically strict, you would need to have two separate
> items,
> > one for
> > > the office, and one for the class. Because the individual kinds
> have not
> > been
> > > instances of the office - they have been holders of the office.
> And they
> > have
> > > been instances of the class, but not holders of the class.
> > >
> > > On wikidata, we often conflate these things for sake of
> simplicity. But
> > when you
> > > try to write queries, this does not make things simpler, it makes
> it harder.
> > >
> > > Anything that is a subclass of X, and at the same an instance of Y,
> > where Y is
> > > not "class", is problematic. I think this is the root 

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Peter F. Patel-Schneider]

Although there is no formal problem here, care does have to be taken when
modelling entities that are to be considered as both classes and non-classes
(or, and especially, metaclasses and non-metaclass classes).  It is all too
easy for even experienced modellers to make mistakes.  The problem is worse
when the modelling formalism is weak (as the Wikidata formalism is) and thus
does not itself provide much support to detect mistakes.  The problem is even
worse when the modelling methodology often does not provide much description
of the entities (as is the case in Wikidata).


The paper that Denny cites proposes that each entity be given a level (0 for
non-class entities and some number greater than 0 for classes).  The instance
of relationship is limited so that it only relates entities to entities that
are a single level higher and the subclass of relationship is limited to that
it only relates entities within a single level.  This rules out the
problematic earthquake (Q7944), which used to be both an instance and a
subclass of natural disaster (Q8065), and white (Q23444), which is currently
both an instance and a subclass of color (Q1075).  Although neither of these
situations is a formal failure they are both almost certainly modelling 
failures.

It is, however, useful to be able to model entities that do not fit into this
modelling methodology, like the class of all classes.  These exceptions are, I
think, rare.


Anyway, what this points out is that there are problems in how Wikidata models
the world.  Better guidelines on how to model on Wikidata would be useful.
Strict rules, however, can easily prevent modelling what Wikidata should be
modelling.

My suggestion is that Wikidata classes should have more information associated
with them.   It should be possible for a modeller to easily determine how a
class is supposed to be used.  This is not currently possible for color and I
think is the main source of the problems with color.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications



On 01/09/2017 10:28 AM, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
> I agree with Peter here. Daniel's statement of "Anything that is a subclass of
> X, and at the same an instance of Y, where Y is not "class", is problematic."
> is simply too strong. The classical example is Harry the eagle, and eagle
> being a species.
> 
> The following paper has a much more measured and subtle approach to this 
> question:
> 
> http://snap.stanford.edu/wikiworkshop2016/papers/Wiki_Workshop__WWW_2016_paper_11.pdf
>  
> 
> I still think it is potentially and partially too strong, but certainly much
> better than Daniel's strict statement.
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:58 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> > wrote:
> 
> On 01/09/2017 07:20 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
> > Am 09.01.2017 um 04:36 schrieb Markus Kroetzsch:
> >> Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but Wikidata is
> about all
> >> of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of 
> Iberia" is
> >> still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have its own
> properties etc.
> >> I would therefore say (without having checked the page):
> >>
> >> King of Iberiainstance of  office
> >> King of Iberiasubclass of  king
> >
> > To be semantically strict, you would need to have two separate items,
> one for
> > the office, and one for the class. Because the individual kinds have not
> been
> > instances of the office - they have been holders of the office. And they
> have
> > been instances of the class, but not holders of the class.
> >
> > On wikidata, we often conflate these things for sake of simplicity. But
> when you
> > try to write queries, this does not make things simpler, it makes it 
> harder.
> >
> > Anything that is a subclass of X, and at the same an instance of Y,
> where Y is
> > not "class", is problematic. I think this is the root of the confusion
> Gerards
> > speaks of.
> 
> There is no a priori reason that an office cannot be a class.  Some 
> formalisms
> don't allow this, but there are others that do.  Some sets of rules for
> ontology construction don't allow this, but there are others that do.  
> There
> is certainly no universal semantic consideration, even in any strict 
> notion of
> semantics, that would require that there be two separate items here.
> 
> As far as I can tell, the Wikidata formalism is not one that would 
> disallow
> offices being classes.  As far as I can tell, the rules for constructing 
> the
> Wikidata ontology don't disallow it either.
> 
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
> 
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org 
> 

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Denny Vrandečić]

I agree with Peter here. Daniel's statement of "Anything that is a subclass
of X, and at the same an instance of Y, where Y is not "class", is
problematic." is simply too strong. The classical example is Harry the
eagle, and eagle being a species.

The following paper has a much more measured and subtle approach to this
question:

http://snap.stanford.edu/wikiworkshop2016/papers/Wiki_Workshop__WWW_2016_paper_11.pdf


I still think it is potentially and partially too strong, but certainly
much better than Daniel's strict statement.



On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 7:58 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschnei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 01/09/2017 07:20 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
> > Am 09.01.2017 um 04:36 schrieb Markus Kroetzsch:
> >> Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but Wikidata is
> about all
> >> of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of
> Iberia" is
> >> still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have its own
> properties etc.
> >> I would therefore say (without having checked the page):
> >>
> >> King of Iberiainstance of  office
> >> King of Iberiasubclass of  king
> >
> > To be semantically strict, you would need to have two separate items,
> one for
> > the office, and one for the class. Because the individual kinds have not
> been
> > instances of the office - they have been holders of the office. And they
> have
> > been instances of the class, but not holders of the class.
> >
> > On wikidata, we often conflate these things for sake of simplicity. But
> when you
> > try to write queries, this does not make things simpler, it makes it
> harder.
> >
> > Anything that is a subclass of X, and at the same an instance of Y,
> where Y is
> > not "class", is problematic. I think this is the root of the confusion
> Gerards
> > speaks of.
>
> There is no a priori reason that an office cannot be a class.  Some
> formalisms
> don't allow this, but there are others that do.  Some sets of rules for
> ontology construction don't allow this, but there are others that do.
> There
> is certainly no universal semantic consideration, even in any strict
> notion of
> semantics, that would require that there be two separate items here.
>
> As far as I can tell, the Wikidata formalism is not one that would disallow
> offices being classes.  As far as I can tell, the rules for constructing
> the
> Wikidata ontology don't disallow it either.
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Peter F. Patel-Schneider]

On 01/09/2017 07:20 AM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
> Am 09.01.2017 um 04:36 schrieb Markus Kroetzsch:
>> Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but Wikidata is about 
>> all
>> of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of Iberia" is
>> still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have its own properties 
>> etc.
>> I would therefore say (without having checked the page):
>>
>> King of Iberiainstance of  office
>> King of Iberiasubclass of  king
> 
> To be semantically strict, you would need to have two separate items, one for
> the office, and one for the class. Because the individual kinds have not been
> instances of the office - they have been holders of the office. And they have
> been instances of the class, but not holders of the class.
> 
> On wikidata, we often conflate these things for sake of simplicity. But when 
> you
> try to write queries, this does not make things simpler, it makes it harder.
> 
> Anything that is a subclass of X, and at the same an instance of Y, where Y is
> not "class", is problematic. I think this is the root of the confusion Gerards
> speaks of.

There is no a priori reason that an office cannot be a class.  Some formalisms
don't allow this, but there are others that do.  Some sets of rules for
ontology construction don't allow this, but there are others that do.  There
is certainly no universal semantic consideration, even in any strict notion of
semantics, that would require that there be two separate items here.

As far as I can tell, the Wikidata formalism is not one that would disallow
offices being classes.  As far as I can tell, the rules for constructing the
Wikidata ontology don't disallow it either.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
As I said before, there are only office holders. A person is not defined
only by the office that he once held. Mr Obama is more than just the
incumbent president of the United States. He is not defined by it.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 9 January 2017 at 16:20, Daniel Kinzler 
wrote:

> Am 09.01.2017 um 04:36 schrieb Markus Kroetzsch:
> > Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but Wikidata is
> about all
> > of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of Iberia"
> is
> > still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have its own
> properties etc.
> > I would therefore say (without having checked the page):
> >
> > King of Iberiainstance of  office
> > King of Iberiasubclass of  king
>
> To be semantically strict, you would need to have two separate items, one
> for
> the office, and one for the class. Because the individual kinds have not
> been
> instances of the office - they have been holders of the office. And they
> have
> been instances of the class, but not holders of the class.
>
> On wikidata, we often conflate these things for sake of simplicity. But
> when you
> try to write queries, this does not make things simpler, it makes it
> harder.
>
> Anything that is a subclass of X, and at the same an instance of Y, where
> Y is
> not "class", is problematic. I think this is the root of the confusion
> Gerards
> speaks of.
>
> --
> Daniel Kinzler
> Senior Software Developer
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 09.01.2017 um 04:36 schrieb Markus Kroetzsch:
> Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but Wikidata is about 
> all
> of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of Iberia" is
> still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have its own properties 
> etc.
> I would therefore say (without having checked the page):
> 
> King of Iberiainstance of  office
> King of Iberiasubclass of  king

To be semantically strict, you would need to have two separate items, one for
the office, and one for the class. Because the individual kinds have not been
instances of the office - they have been holders of the office. And they have
been instances of the class, but not holders of the class.

On wikidata, we often conflate these things for sake of simplicity. But when you
try to write queries, this does not make things simpler, it makes it harder.

Anything that is a subclass of X, and at the same an instance of Y, where Y is
not "class", is problematic. I think this is the root of the confusion Gerards
speaks of.

-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
My answer is that every past king is not a king but an office holder. For
me the name king is just a label; there is no logic in the way it is
applied. There are empires where the office holder is called a king for
instance... For me they are all monarchs. They are associated with a
specific country.

This prevents illogical things like "follows" on a person; for me they are
qualifiers because all too often one person can have multiple predecessors
and successors. It is the only sane way to do this (imho).
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 9 January 2017 at 13:36, Markus Kroetzsch  wrote:

> On 09.01.2017 12:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> It is in the logic. When a king is a monarch and a monarch is a
>> politician I am fine. But when people insist that a "King of Iberia" is
>> a subclass it does not make sense. People hold the office of and it is
>> singular. When such things result in struggles, I think we have a problem.
>>
>
> I would say: "Every King of Iberia was also a king."
>
> Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but Wikidata is
> about all of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King of
> Iberia" is still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have its own
> properties etc. I would therefore say (without having checked the page):
>
> King of Iberia  instance of  office
> King of Iberia  subclass of  king
>
>
>> I have asked in the past to explain the nonsense on items like monarch.
>> When I look at Reasonator there is so much that is plain problematic
>> that it is best to ignore it. What complicates it is that the ontology
>> seems to end with politician and that is a travesty in and of itself.
>> With other "occupations" there is a wealth of upper levels that seem to
>> be completely arbitrary and when asked I find it reasonable that nobody
>> steps up to explain because the consequences of answers are problematic.
>>
>
> I agree that there are many cases that need to be modelled in a more
> coherent way. I can only imagine progress in this area to happen on a
> case-by-case basis. One really has to look into the details and check what
> works best in each case. Often there is no wrong or right here, but there
> is a choice how to model things. But once a choice is made, it should be
> applied coherently throughout.
>
> Regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Markus Kroetzsch]

On 09.01.2017 12:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
It is in the logic. When a king is a monarch and a monarch is a
politician I am fine. But when people insist that a "King of Iberia" is
a subclass it does not make sense. People hold the office of and it is
singular. When such things result in struggles, I think we have a problem.


I would say: "Every King of Iberia was also a king."

Only the "current king of Iberia" is a single person, but Wikidata is 
about all of history, so there are many such kings. The office of "King 
of Iberia" is still singular (it is a singular class) and it can have 
its own properties etc. I would therefore say (without having checked 
the page):


King of Iberia  instance of  office
King of Iberia  subclass of  king



I have asked in the past to explain the nonsense on items like monarch.
When I look at Reasonator there is so much that is plain problematic
that it is best to ignore it. What complicates it is that the ontology
seems to end with politician and that is a travesty in and of itself.
With other "occupations" there is a wealth of upper levels that seem to
be completely arbitrary and when asked I find it reasonable that nobody
steps up to explain because the consequences of answers are problematic.


I agree that there are many cases that need to be modelled in a more 
coherent way. I can only imagine progress in this area to happen on a 
case-by-case basis. One really has to look into the details and check 
what works best in each case. Often there is no wrong or right here, but 
there is a choice how to model things. But once a choice is made, it 
should be applied coherently throughout.


Regards,

Markus

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
It is in the logic. When a king is a monarch and a monarch is a politician
I am fine. But when people insist that a "King of Iberia" is a subclass it
does not make sense. People hold the office of and it is singular. When
such things result in struggles, I think we have a problem.

I have asked in the past to explain the nonsense on items like monarch.
When I look at Reasonator there is so much that is plain problematic that
it is best to ignore it. What complicates it is that the ontology seems to
end with politician and that is a travesty in and of itself. With other
"occupations" there is a wealth of upper levels that seem to be completely
arbitrary and when asked I find it reasonable that nobody steps up to
explain because the consequences of answers are problematic.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 8 January 2017 at 10:27, Jan Ainali  wrote:

> Gerard, I am willing to help. What do you want explained? (We can perhaps
> move that off-list.)
>
> Med vänliga hälsningar
> Jan Ainali
> http://ainali.com
>
> 2017-01-08 8:52 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :
>
>> Hoi,
>> What I mean and what I say is that there has been noone willing to
>> explain why certain items are in there. When you ask questions it is seen
>> as a threat and consequently I find I am treated like one. The consequence
>> is that I do not care about the structure and totally ignore it. This is a
>> shame because on occasion I do expect this has an impact.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 8 January 2017 at 00:15, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Markus Kroetzsch, 08/01/2017 00:12:
>>>
 The subclass of and instance of statements are actually used in very
 many WDQS queries, often with * expressions to navigate the hierarchy.

>>>
>>> I think that's what Gerard meant: you don't have to know what's under
>>> the hood, as long as it works. When you get some unexpected result, you go
>>> check what went wrong in the chain of subclasses etc. This is at least what
>>> I do, although I also work with some more traditional people who want to
>>> know the full ontology before even entering their first statement (of
>>> course they get lost for a few months).
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Jan Ainali]

Gerard, I am willing to help. What do you want explained? (We can perhaps
move that off-list.)

Med vänliga hälsningar
Jan Ainali
http://ainali.com

2017-01-08 8:52 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen :

> Hoi,
> What I mean and what I say is that there has been noone willing to explain
> why certain items are in there. When you ask questions it is seen as a
> threat and consequently I find I am treated like one. The consequence is
> that I do not care about the structure and totally ignore it. This is a
> shame because on occasion I do expect this has an impact.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 8 January 2017 at 00:15, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
>
>> Markus Kroetzsch, 08/01/2017 00:12:
>>
>>> The subclass of and instance of statements are actually used in very
>>> many WDQS queries, often with * expressions to navigate the hierarchy.
>>>
>>
>> I think that's what Gerard meant: you don't have to know what's under the
>> hood, as long as it works. When you get some unexpected result, you go
>> check what went wrong in the chain of subclasses etc. This is at least what
>> I do, although I also work with some more traditional people who want to
>> know the full ontology before even entering their first statement (of
>> course they get lost for a few months).
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What I mean and what I say is that there has been noone willing to explain
why certain items are in there. When you ask questions it is seen as a
threat and consequently I find I am treated like one. The consequence is
that I do not care about the structure and totally ignore it. This is a
shame because on occasion I do expect this has an impact.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 8 January 2017 at 00:15, Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:

> Markus Kroetzsch, 08/01/2017 00:12:
>
>> The subclass of and instance of statements are actually used in very
>> many WDQS queries, often with * expressions to navigate the hierarchy.
>>
>
> I think that's what Gerard meant: you don't have to know what's under the
> hood, as long as it works. When you get some unexpected result, you go
> check what went wrong in the chain of subclasses etc. This is at least what
> I do, although I also work with some more traditional people who want to
> know the full ontology before even entering their first statement (of
> course they get lost for a few months).
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Markus Kroetzsch, 08/01/2017 00:12:

The subclass of and instance of statements are actually used in very
many WDQS queries, often with * expressions to navigate the hierarchy.


I think that's what Gerard meant: you don't have to know what's under 
the hood, as long as it works. When you get some unexpected result, you 
go check what went wrong in the chain of subclasses etc. This is at 
least what I do, although I also work with some more traditional people 
who want to know the full ontology before even entering their first 
statement (of course they get lost for a few months).


Nemo

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Markus Kroetzsch]

On 07.01.2017 15:27, Gerard Meijssen wrote:

Hoi,
The biggest casualty of the current mess is that people like me do not
care at all about it. It cannot be explained, nobody is interested in
explaining it and consequently there is little use for it. It is "must
have" so it is there.. fine, lets move on.


The subclass of and instance of statements are actually used in very 
many WDQS queries, often with * expressions to navigate the hierarchy. 
WDQ also had a special feature TREE for this purpose. So I'd say that 
this part of the data is rather important to Wikidata. But if you find 
little use in it, that's ok too. Nevertheless, we should try to fix the 
modelling errors there, since they will affect many other people's 
Wikidata experience.


Cheers,

Markus



On 7 January 2017 at 10:39, Markus Kroetzsch
>
wrote:



On 06.01.2017 18:24, Thomas Douillard wrote:

Same entity can be treated both as class and individual


This is valid for OWL as well.


Yes, and since Wikidata does not feature very powerful ontological
statements, you could treat this like in OWL 2 DL semantically as
well, i.e., a weak approach where the "class" and the "instance" are
not really identified works.

Nevertheless, using the ontology might still be challenging
depending on what you want to do with it, since there are quite a
few meta-levels (classes of classes of classes ...) that are not
cleanly separated. When I last checked, we even had some instance-of
cycles ;-) Even this is not a technical problem for the OWL
semantics, but maybe for some tools and approaches.

Cheers,

Markus


2017-01-05 22:21 GMT+01:00 Stas Malyshev

>>:

Hi!

> The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata
ontology" would be to
> download all properties and all the items representing
classes. We currently
> don't have a separate dump for these. Also, do not expect
this to be a concise
> or consistent model that can be used for reasoning. You
are bound to find
> contradictions and lose ends.

Also, Wikidata Toolkit
(https://github.com/Wikidata/Wikidata-Toolkit

>)
can be used to generate something like taxonomy - see e.g.


http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/20160801/dump_download.html




>

But one has to be careful with it as Wikidata may not (and
frequently
does not) follow assumptions that are true for proper OWL
models - there
are no limits on what can be considered a class, a subclass, an
instance, etc. Same entity can be treated both as class and
individual,
and there may be some weird structures, including even
outright errors
such as cycles in subclass graph, etc. And, of course, it
changes all
the time :)

--
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org 
>

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org

>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

>




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



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





___
Wikidata mailing 

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The biggest casualty of the current mess is that people like me do not care
at all about it. It cannot be explained, nobody is interested in explaining
it and consequently there is little use for it. It is "must have" so it is
there.. fine, lets move on.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 7 January 2017 at 10:39, Markus Kroetzsch  wrote:

>
>
> On 06.01.2017 18:24, Thomas Douillard wrote:
>
>> Same entity can be treated both as class and individual
>>>
>>
>> This is valid for OWL as well.
>>
>
> Yes, and since Wikidata does not feature very powerful ontological
> statements, you could treat this like in OWL 2 DL semantically as well,
> i.e., a weak approach where the "class" and the "instance" are not really
> identified works.
>
> Nevertheless, using the ontology might still be challenging depending on
> what you want to do with it, since there are quite a few meta-levels
> (classes of classes of classes ...) that are not cleanly separated. When I
> last checked, we even had some instance-of cycles ;-) Even this is not a
> technical problem for the OWL semantics, but maybe for some tools and
> approaches.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Markus
>
>
>> 2017-01-05 22:21 GMT+01:00 Stas Malyshev > >:
>>
>> Hi!
>>
>> > The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata
>> ontology" would be to
>> > download all properties and all the items representing classes. We
>> currently
>> > don't have a separate dump for these. Also, do not expect this to
>> be a concise
>> > or consistent model that can be used for reasoning. You are bound
>> to find
>> > contradictions and lose ends.
>>
>> Also, Wikidata Toolkit (https://github.com/Wikidata/Wikidata-Toolkit
>> )
>> can be used to generate something like taxonomy - see e.g.
>> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/201608
>> 01/dump_download.html
>> > 801/dump_download.html>
>>
>> But one has to be careful with it as Wikidata may not (and frequently
>> does not) follow assumptions that are true for proper OWL models -
>> there
>> are no limits on what can be considered a class, a subclass, an
>> instance, etc. Same entity can be treated both as class and
>> individual,
>> and there may be some weird structures, including even outright errors
>> such as cycles in subclass graph, etc. And, of course, it changes all
>> the time :)
>>
>> --
>> Stas Malyshev
>> smalys...@wikimedia.org 
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org 
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>> 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Markus Kroetzsch]

On 06.01.2017 18:24, Thomas Douillard wrote:

Same entity can be treated both as class and individual


This is valid for OWL as well.


Yes, and since Wikidata does not feature very powerful ontological 
statements, you could treat this like in OWL 2 DL semantically as well, 
i.e., a weak approach where the "class" and the "instance" are not 
really identified works.


Nevertheless, using the ontology might still be challenging depending on 
what you want to do with it, since there are quite a few meta-levels 
(classes of classes of classes ...) that are not cleanly separated. When 
I last checked, we even had some instance-of cycles ;-) Even this is not 
a technical problem for the OWL semantics, but maybe for some tools and 
approaches.


Cheers,

Markus



2017-01-05 22:21 GMT+01:00 Stas Malyshev >:

Hi!

> The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata ontology" 
would be to
> download all properties and all the items representing classes. We 
currently
> don't have a separate dump for these. Also, do not expect this to be a 
concise
> or consistent model that can be used for reasoning. You are bound to find
> contradictions and lose ends.

Also, Wikidata Toolkit (https://github.com/Wikidata/Wikidata-Toolkit
)
can be used to generate something like taxonomy - see e.g.

http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/20160801/dump_download.html



But one has to be careful with it as Wikidata may not (and frequently
does not) follow assumptions that are true for proper OWL models - there
are no limits on what can be considered a class, a subclass, an
instance, etc. Same entity can be treated both as class and individual,
and there may be some weird structures, including even outright errors
such as cycles in subclass graph, etc. And, of course, it changes all
the time :)

--
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org 

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





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



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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Thomas Douillard]

> Same entity can be treated both as class and individual

This is valid for OWL as well.

2017-01-05 22:21 GMT+01:00 Stas Malyshev :

> Hi!
>
> > The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata ontology"
> would be to
> > download all properties and all the items representing classes. We
> currently
> > don't have a separate dump for these. Also, do not expect this to be a
> concise
> > or consistent model that can be used for reasoning. You are bound to find
> > contradictions and lose ends.
>
> Also, Wikidata Toolkit (https://github.com/Wikidata/Wikidata-Toolkit)
> can be used to generate something like taxonomy - see e.g.
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/
> 20160801/dump_download.html
>
> But one has to be careful with it as Wikidata may not (and frequently
> does not) follow assumptions that are true for proper OWL models - there
> are no limits on what can be considered a class, a subclass, an
> instance, etc. Same entity can be treated both as class and individual,
> and there may be some weird structures, including even outright errors
> such as cycles in subclass graph, etc. And, of course, it changes all
> the time :)
>
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalys...@wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Dimitris Kontokostas]

Hi,

In case it helps, there is also an a few months old version from the latest
DBpedia release for properties [1,2] and classes [3,4].
the properties do not contain the "rdf:type rdf:Property / owl:*Property"
definitions
and the current dump of the classes contain only subClassOf statements to
DBpedia classes based on some mappings described in [5]

[1]
http://downloads.dbpedia.org/2016-04/core-i18n/wikidata/properties_wikidata.ttl.bz2
[2]
http://downloads.dbpedia.org/preview.php?file=2016-04_sl_core-i18n_sl_wikidata_sl_properties_wikidata.ttl.bz2
(preview)
[3]
http://downloads.dbpedia.org/2016-04/core-i18n/wikidata/ontology_subclassof_wikidata.ttl.bz2
[4]
http://downloads.dbpedia.org/preview.php?file=2016-04_sl_core-i18n_sl_wikidata_sl_properties_wikidata.ttl.bz2
(preview)
[5]
http://www.semantic-web-journal.net/content/wikidata-through-eyes-dbpedia-1

On Thu, Jan 5, 2017 at 11:21 PM, Stas Malyshev 
wrote:

> Hi!
>
> > The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata ontology"
> would be to
> > download all properties and all the items representing classes. We
> currently
> > don't have a separate dump for these. Also, do not expect this to be a
> concise
> > or consistent model that can be used for reasoning. You are bound to find
> > contradictions and lose ends.
>
> Also, Wikidata Toolkit (https://github.com/Wikidata/Wikidata-Toolkit)
> can be used to generate something like taxonomy - see e.g.
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/
> 20160801/dump_download.html
>
> But one has to be careful with it as Wikidata may not (and frequently
> does not) follow assumptions that are true for proper OWL models - there
> are no limits on what can be considered a class, a subclass, an
> instance, etc. Same entity can be treated both as class and individual,
> and there may be some weird structures, including even outright errors
> such as cycles in subclass graph, etc. And, of course, it changes all
> the time :)
>
> --
> Stas Malyshev
> smalys...@wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>



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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Stas Malyshev]

Hi!

> The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata ontology" would be 
> to
> download all properties and all the items representing classes. We currently
> don't have a separate dump for these. Also, do not expect this to be a concise
> or consistent model that can be used for reasoning. You are bound to find
> contradictions and lose ends.

Also, Wikidata Toolkit (https://github.com/Wikidata/Wikidata-Toolkit)
can be used to generate something like taxonomy - see e.g.
http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/20160801/dump_download.html

But one has to be careful with it as Wikidata may not (and frequently
does not) follow assumptions that are true for proper OWL models - there
are no limits on what can be considered a class, a subclass, an
instance, etc. Same entity can be treated both as class and individual,
and there may be some weird structures, including even outright errors
such as cycles in subclass graph, etc. And, of course, it changes all
the time :)

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Markus Kroetzsch]

Hi Rüdiger,

Daniel refers to several independent aspects of Wikidata:

(1) The ontology is not separated from the data. Schematic information 
is mostly managed by encoding it in data as well. Therefore, if you want 
some of it (but not the rest), then some extraction will be necessary. 
The Wikidata SPARQL service is your friend for not-too-big (up to some 
100K triples) on-the-fly data exports, enough to get the whole class 
hierarchy, for example. We also have created some ontology-like excerpts 
in the past [1]. These have been done offline by processing the data 
dump using Wikidata Toolkit.


(2) The ontology is very lightweight. Wikidata mostly encodes properties 
and their types, some hierarchical information on properties and 
classes, and some "weak" hints on things like domain and range for some 
properties. So there are no complex OWL axioms there. This is also the 
reason why the ontology should not contain any logical contradictions -- 
when Daniel refers to "contradictions" I guess he means incoherences in 
the overall modelling (which contradict human intuition).


(3) The ontology may change at any time. This is a consequence of (1) 
and the fact that Wikidata is controlled by a global community.


For all of these reasons, there cannot be one "Wikidata ontology" but 
there might still be many useful ontological things you can get without 
too much effort.


If you are interested in learning about the classes and properties used 
in Wikidata to get an informal idea of its current schema and content, 
then you could also browse this data in SQID [2].


Best regards,

Markus

[1] 
http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/20160801/dump_download.html

[2] https://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/browse?type=properties

On 05.01.2017 16:15, Daniel Kinzler wrote:

Am 04.01.2017 um 11:00 schrieb Léa Lacroix:

Hello,

You can find it here: http://wikiba.se/ontology-1.0.owl

If you have questions regarding the ontology, feel free to ask.



Please note that this is the *wikibase* ontology, which thefines the meta-model
for the information on Wikidata. It defines models statements, sitelinks, source
references, etc.

This ontology does not model "real world" concepts or properties like location
or color or children, etc. Modeling on this level is done on Wikidata itself,
there is no fixed RDF or OWL schema or ontology.

The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata ontology" would be to
download all properties and all the items representing classes. We currently
don't have a separate dump for these. Also, do not expect this to be a concise
or consistent model that can be used for reasoning. You are bound to find
contradictions and lose ends.




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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 04.01.2017 um 11:00 schrieb Léa Lacroix:
> Hello,
> 
> You can find it here: http://wikiba.se/ontology-1.0.owl
> 
> If you have questions regarding the ontology, feel free to ask.


Please note that this is the *wikibase* ontology, which thefines the meta-model
for the information on Wikidata. It defines models statements, sitelinks, source
references, etc.

This ontology does not model "real world" concepts or properties like location
or color or children, etc. Modeling on this level is done on Wikidata itself,
there is no fixed RDF or OWL schema or ontology.

The best you can get in terms of "downloading the wikidata ontology" would be to
download all properties and all the items representing classes. We currently
don't have a separate dump for these. Also, do not expect this to be a concise
or consistent model that can be used for reasoning. You are bound to find
contradictions and lose ends.


-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Léa Lacroix]

Hello,

You can find it here: http://wikiba.se/ontology-1.0.owl

If you have questions regarding the ontology, feel free to ask.

Bests,

On 4 January 2017 at 10:42, Klein, Rüdiger <
ruediger.kl...@iais.fraunhofer.de> wrote:

> Is there a way to download the wikidata ontology?
>
>
>
> Beste Grüße / kind regards
>
> Rüdiger Klein
>
> __
>
> Dr. Rüdiger Klein
>
> Fraunhofer Institute for Intelligent Analysis and Information Systems
> (IAIS) Dept. Adaptive Reflective Teams (ART)
>
> Schloss Birlinghoven, 53754 Sankt Augustin, Germany
>
> Tel: +49 2241 14 2608 <+49%202241%20142608>
>
> Fax: +49 2241 14 2342 <+49%202241%20142342>
>
> E-Mail: ruediger.kl...@iais.fraunhofer.de
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>


-- 
Léa Lacroix
Project Manager Community Communication for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/029/42207.
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Jan Macura]

Thanks for your answers, Markus.
One last question (I hope): What advantage brings the new reification
process (using different namespaces instead of {s, v, c, ..} suffixes)?

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Jan Macura]

Thank you very much! I will try to dig around it a little bit further:

2016-05-01 21:55 GMT+02:00 Stas Malyshev :

> That's not the original representation inside Wikibase
> (that still has separate elements and can be also seen in the JSON dump)
> and not the only RDF representation - there's also "full value"
> representation, described here:
>
> https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Indexing/RDF_Dump_Format#Globe_coordinate
>

Maybe you can tell me, why you have dropped the proposed *altitude* value
from the datatype? How it exactly suppose to work with different coordinate
systems (potentially at different celestial bodies)? And how can one
specify the celestial body in WD? I can't see any interface for it there..

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Jan Macura]

Thanks for reply.

2016-05-02 7:19 GMT+02:00 Markus Kroetzsch :

> To be honest, I had not expected this to be of much importance for many
> users at the time, but if there is interest in us updating our dumps to the
> new format, we can certainly do this in the next couple of weeks.
>

Well, the point is, I was using the thirt party SPARQL enpoints of
Universidad de Chile ([1], dead now) and Openlink ([2]), where the queries
with this ontology worked fine, and now when I discovered, that WMF already
launched its own endpoint, the queries don't work.. Little confused, so I
am asking..
The other thing is, my primary sources were available scientific articles,
namely [3]. Now it seems that *a lot* has changed since.

[1] http://milenio.dcc.uchile.cl/sparql
[2] http://lod.openlinksw.com/
[3] http://korrekt.org/papers/Wikidata-RDF-export-2014.pdf

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Stas Malyshev]

Hi!

>  If geo-coordinates use WKT in Wikidata (which I can't see anywhere
> there), does it mean, that the original idea of /{latitude, longitude,
> altitude, precision, globe}/ format was abandoned?

Coordinates are WKT in the RDF output of Wikidata, when represented as
single literal. That's not the original representation inside Wikibase
(that still has separate elements and can be also seen in the JSON dump)
and not the only RDF representation - there's also "full value"
representation, described here:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Indexing/RDF_Dump_Format#Globe_coordinate

This one is harder to index and search for, but it allows you to do
lookups that depend on specific part of the coordinate (like, which
objects are on Mars, or what is located on the equator)?

> Oh, and another thing: when I download "wikidata-properties.nt" from
> WDTK dump files site [1], there is  used
> everywhere. So... is the WB ontology somehow translated to WD ontology?

Hmm, not sure about that one, Markus should know more about it.

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Tom Morris]

On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 7:34 PM, Jan Macura  wrote:

>
> I've been using the  namespace for
> datatype properties for some time (more than a year).
> Now I can see everywhere only the  ns.
> Was there some reason for change? Are these two somehow compatible? Will
> the first one be deprecated?
>

The original is currently a 404 which isn't very cool URI
-ish.  Shouldn't the ontology still be
available for those who have used it in the past?

Are there additional URIs for non-Swedish versions of the new ontology?

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

Re: [Wikidata] Wikidata ontology

[Markus Kroetzsch]

On 01.05.2016 01:34, Jan Macura wrote:

Hi all

I've been using the  namespace for
datatype properties for some time (more than a year).
Now I can see everywhere only the  ns.
Was there some reason for change? Are these two somehow compatible? Will
the first one be deprecated?


Hi Jan,

We have revised the OWL/RDF encoding as part of the work on the SPARQL 
query service, and the URIs have been changed in the process. Many of 
the same terms can still be found under the new namespace. The new 
namespace reflects that the ontology is the same for any site using this 
software, not just Wikidata.


There have also been further modifications in the RDF export, e.g., in 
relation to how certain values are encoded (e.g., geo coordinates use 
WKT in Wikidata, but used a custom type with planet in our initial RDF 
dumps). Another major extension was that simplified data values (encoded 
as single resources) are now available on every level -- statement, 
qualifier, reference -- and some new properties had to be introduced for 
this. Finally, there are also some changes in the URIs used for various 
RDF properties. All in all, the basic encoding (with statements, 
references, and complex values represented by own RDF resources) is the 
same, but the syntactic details changed quite a bit between our original 
ISWC publication and the launch of the SPARQL service.


Cheers,

Markus

--
Markus Kroetzsch
Faculty of Computer Science
Technische Universität Dresden
+49 351 463 38486
http://korrekt.org/

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