Hello all,
Wikidata consists of millions of single data items, which is great. In
order to facilitate modeling the interactions between the single items, we
hereby suggest using OWL based ontologies (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_Ontology_Language).
We think that using ontologies brings
Interesting approach, and one I would support. I have been against forcing
Wikidata into any other jacket than one of its own knitting, but this
approach makes OWL look like any other external database that may or may
not come with properties worth integrating into Wikidata's jacket
On Fri, Apr
Yes. I could see a simple Statements vs. External identifiers
distinction being useful that's also reflected in the data model so
it's easier to treat these property groups in a distinct manner.
I support grouping statements about external identifiers together and
distinguishing them from
Hoi,
When you look at Wikidata itself, it is very much a jungle of unsorted
data. This has been recognised and a different layout of the information is
in the planning. I am glad with your complaint because it shows that we are
maturing.. We have so much of a mess that it is largely
Re-reading...
Erik,
I think you mean that the display itself for instance on this page:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q42
would be more useful if all Identifiers were pushed down to the bottom half
or different section, for instance, and keeping descriptor properties on
the upper half ? (instead
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 7:07 PM, Thad Guidry thadgui...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you mean that the display itself for instance on this page:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q42
would be more useful if all Identifiers were pushed down to the bottom half
or different section,
for instance, and
Why do you have to get lost in them ?
Most already have the phrase ID or Identifier in their naming
convention. So perhaps a better approach would be to standardize the
naming convention used for External Identifiers and make it a best practice
and golden rule during property creation and
