Hoi Romaine,
I am sorry but while I understand your frustration, you are not realistic
and you do no justice to the situation. To start with Wikidata is not user
friendly at all. It never was because development has been concentrating on
basic architecture and basic functionality. At that we are
Hi all,
I have signaled to a list of Italian developers/people interested in
(Linked) Open Data (known as Spaghetti Open Data[*]) the fact that
Wikidata item can be export in RDF/N-Triple:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:EntityData/Q1.rdf
You can discuss the general user friendliness, but that is not the topic of
this thread. You also miss the problem that is described. All the rest you
write is not relevant here at all.
There is a problem with the workflow and we (I have seen several users who
complaint about it) would like that
Am 10.10.2014 15:40, schrieb Cristian Consonni:
Hi all,
I have signaled to a list of Italian developers/people interested in
(Linked) Open Data (known as Spaghetti Open Data[*]) the fact that
Wikidata item can be export in RDF/N-Triple:
Thanks for the pointers, James! I'll try to digest them.
Our thoughts on the issue of representing relationships between works are
not fully formed yet, but the current idea is loosely that
* if the original work has a Wikidata item (according to whatever
notability guidelines the community
Gergo
One of the big advantages of commonsdata over wikitext is that commonsdata
is Internationalised and ready for localisation.
For this reason alone I believe it is worth looking closely at all wikitext
to see if it can be expressed as a Commonsdata statement.
Joe
On 10 Oct 2014 17:09,
One case that particularly comes to mind is where we have multiple
different scans of the same work -- eg we have multiple (incomplete)
sets of the early 1800s colour engravings from Ackermann's Microcosm of
London, or Pyne's Royal Palaces, or Audubon's Birds of America etc.
It seems a shame
Hi Cristian,
As Daniel said, the live export is currently somewhat limited. However,
we provide RDF dumps that contain all the data:
http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/
This shows how the final live exports should also look (more or less),
and it could be a blueprint for somebody
So it is clear, instance_of, when translated to OWL, has generally been
written as the predicate rdf:type. There is no specific instance_of
relation defined as a property in OWL versions.
There is still a difference between rdf:type and instance_of, which is that
it is ternary temporally indexed
