Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: Well they can ask. As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the City of London (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? Side remark: in the UK, city and town are special legal statuses of settlements. This terminology is what City of London refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class city in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK towns have over 100k inhabitants. The class city is used for relatively large and permanent human settlement[s] [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of relatively). Maybe we should even wonder if city is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a human settlement is also rather clear. But drawing the line between village, city and town is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). Markus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether that was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people. This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible to drill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it. If we build it they will come! At least that is my understanding. Joe On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.com mailto:jeroended...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as The cities with highest population in Europe. People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that. This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query builder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto: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 ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
[Wikidata-l] Wikidata Toolkit 0.2.0 released
Dear all, I am happy to announce the second release of Wikidata Toolkit [1], the Java library for programming with Wikidata and Wikibase. This release fixes bugs and improves features of the first release (download, parse, process Wikidata exports) and it adds new components for serializing JSON and RDF exports for Wikidata. A separate announcement regarding the RDF exports will be sent shortly. Maven users can get the library directly from Maven Central (see [1]); this is the preferred method of installation. There is also an all-in-one JAR at github [2] and of course the sources [3]. Version 0.2.0 is still in alpha. For the next release, we will focus on the following tasks: * Faster loading of Wikibase dumps + support for the new JSON format that will be used in the dumps soon * Support for storing and querying data after loading it * Initial steps towards storing data in a binary format after loading it Feedback is welcome. Developers are also invited to contribute via github. Cheers, Markus [1] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikidata_Toolkit [2] https://github.com/Wikidata/Wikidata-Toolkit/releases (you'll also need to install the third party dependencies manually when using this) [3] https://github.com/Wikidata/Wikidata-Toolkit/ ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
We may possibly use an ad hoc item City of United Kingdom, subclass of city and UK administrative division, may we? L. Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org ha scritto: On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: Well they can ask. As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the City of London (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? Side remark: in the UK, city and town are special legal statuses of settlements. This terminology is what City of London refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class city in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK towns have over 100k inhabitants. The class city is used for relatively large and permanent human settlement[s] [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of relatively). Maybe we should even wonder if city is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a human settlement is also rather clear. But drawing the line between village, city and town is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). Markus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether that was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people. This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible to drill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it. If we build it they will come! At least that is my understanding. Joe On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.com mailto:jeroended...@gmail.com wrote: Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as The cities with highest population in Europe. People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that. This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query builder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto: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 ___ 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
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
Similar case: For czech towns we have https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q15978299 JAnD 2014-06-10 11:11 GMT+02:00 Luca Martinelli martinellil...@gmail.com: We may possibly use an ad hoc item City of United Kingdom, subclass of city and UK administrative division, may we? ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
On 10/06/14 11:11, Luca Martinelli wrote: We may possibly use an ad hoc item City of United Kingdom, subclass of city and UK administrative division, may we? Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested to link to city status in the UK -- but there is no item town status in the UK so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest. Markus L. Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org mailto:mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org ha scritto: On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: Well they can ask. As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the limits of each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The population of the City of London (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! Should we change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? Side remark: in the UK, city and town are special legal statuses of settlements. This terminology is what City of London refers to. There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it is not what we mean by our class city in Wikidata. In particular, this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK towns have over 100k inhabitants. The class city is used for relatively large and permanent human settlement[s] [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of relatively). Maybe we should even wonder if city is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a human settlement is also rather clear. But drawing the line between village, city and town is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). Markus [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or the Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude these the query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an item is 'in the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether that was true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people. This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to point out that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are going to have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible to drill down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data is there, open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a letting loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it. If we build it they will come! At least that is my understanding. Joe On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw jeroended...@gmail.com mailto:jeroended...@gmail.com mailto:jeroended...@gmail.com mailto:jeroended...@gmail.com__ wrote: Hey Yury, We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for Wikidata. People will be able to define queries on dedicated query pages that contain a query entity. These query entities will represent things such as The cities with highest population in Europe. People will then be able to access the result for those queries via the web API and be able to embed different views on them into wiki pages. These views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might indeed be able to share code between the two projects for that. This functionality is still some way off though. We still need to do a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query builder. To already get something out to the users, we plan to enable more simple queries via the web API in the near future. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com Software craftsmanship advocate Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany ~=[,,_,,]:3 _ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote: The class city is used for relatively large and permanent human settlement[s] [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of relatively). Maybe we should even wonder if city is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a human settlement is also rather clear. But drawing the line between village, city and town is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a city is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-) I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the human-readable pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? If you are aiming to do a search based on instances of 'city', we recommend you try instances of 'human settlement' instead... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
[Wikidata-l] Wikidata:List of properties/Summary table
Hello, I've noticed that there are a lot of script errors towards the bottom of Wikidata:List of properties/Summary table I suspect that this is caused by the same thing mentioned in this email: https://www.mail-archive.com/wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org/msg02756.html Is there anything that can be done about this at all? This is an incredibly useful list and it's sad to only be able to see half of it. Should the page just be split? Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
[Wikidata-l] Gadget
Good morning, Does anyone know if there has been a gadget developed that adds a link to the tools section, or somewhere similar, from Wikipedia articles to their corresponding Wikidata items. Such a gadget would make it significantly easier to manually import data in Wikidata while reading Wikipedia casually. Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Gadget
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Derric Atzrott datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote: Good morning, Does anyone know if there has been a gadget developed that adds a link to the tools section, or somewhere similar, from Wikipedia articles to their corresponding Wikidata items. Such a gadget would make it significantly easier to manually import data in Wikidata while reading Wikipedia casually. This is already done by Wikibase. There should be a data item link in the toolbox in the sidebar if the item is connected. Cheers, Katie Thank you, Derric Atzrott Computer Specialist Alizee Pathology ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l -- Katie Filbert Wikidata Developer Wikimedia Germany e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24, 10963 Berlin Phone (030) 219 158 26-0 http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Germany - Society for the Promotion of free knowledge eV Entered in the register of Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg under the number 23 855 as recognized as charitable by the Inland Revenue for corporations I Berlin, tax number 27/681/51985. ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Gadget
On 10 June 2014 15:23, Katie Filbert katie.filb...@wikimedia.de wrote: Does anyone know if there has been a gadget developed that adds a link to the tools section, or somewhere similar, from Wikipedia articles to their corresponding Wikidata items. Such a gadget would make it significantly easier to manually import data in Wikidata while reading Wikipedia casually. This is already done by Wikibase. There should be a data item link in the toolbox in the sidebar if the item is connected. Which is very useful. What would also be useful, would be a create data item link, if no item exists already. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Gadget
This is already done by Wikibase. There should be a data item link in the toolbox in the sidebar if the item is connected. I have no idea how I missed that. Well that should save me some time. I was about to go make a gadget to replicate that functionality. What would also be useful, would be a create data item link, if no item exists already. /\ This! Agree completely. Also is the norm for this list HTML or Text email? Thank you, Derric Atzrott ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata project focused on economic data
This is good news, and helps a lot — thanks for taking the time to respond Joe. It may be a lot of work, but it would be great if you could reference the actual property names by URL for the properties you mentioned. //Ed On Jun 9, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: Edward Yes Wikidata has a mechanism for adding qualifiers and references to claims. Where there are multiple values we can also mark one of them as preferred and then simple queries will just get the preferred value. For population figures each value would typically have qualifiers for * Point in time (when the population figure applies) * Determination method (census, estimate, whatever) * Applies to part (total, black, white, christian, muslim etc.) And each value would have a reference with the organisation, the url, the date the info was published, the date the info was retrieved etc. The most current total value would be marked as 'preferred'. Values which are widely known but considered unreliable would be included but marked 'deprecated'. All these properties have already been implemented and we are starting to add them to items. Hope this helps Joe On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:31 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: hi alex, i saw on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Economics a hint to provide sample data. would it be not an option to provide a couple of data points to make the life of persons easier, instead of making them open links and tables? rupert On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Alex Peek alexpe...@gmail.com wrote: We are a new project looking for volunteers. Project homepage: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Economic_Map Thanks, Alex ___ 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 ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l signature.asc Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include. A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the City of London (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), Greater London (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the City of London but does include the City of Westminster), all the built up areas out to the Metropolitan green belt (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed). When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor? Joe On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote: The class city is used for relatively large and permanent human settlement[s] [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of relatively). Maybe we should even wonder if city is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a human settlement is also rather clear. But drawing the line between village, city and town is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a city is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-) I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the human-readable pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? If you are aiming to do a search based on instances of 'city', we recommend you try instances of 'human settlement' instead... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
I think we should drop part of and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png Cheers, Micru On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include. A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the City of London (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), Greater London (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the City of London but does include the City of Westminster), all the built up areas out to the Metropolitan green belt (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed). When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor? Joe On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote: The class city is used for relatively large and permanent human settlement[s] [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of relatively). Maybe we should even wonder if city is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a human settlement is also rather clear. But drawing the line between village, city and town is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a city is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-) I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the human-readable pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? If you are aiming to do a search based on instances of 'city', we recommend you try instances of 'human settlement' instead... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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 -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata project focused on economic data
Sure. Here they are: - population (P1082) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1082: number of people inhabiting the place - point in time (P585) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P585: time and date something took place, existed or a statement was true - determination method (P459) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P459: qualifier stating how a value has been determined - applies to part (P518) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P518: part of the item for which the claim is valid Use Property search https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearchprofile=advancedsearch=fulltext=Searchns120=1redirs=1profile=advanced to search for properties Help:Sources https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Help:Sources has info on references and properties to use with them. On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 5:18 PM, Edward Summers e...@pobox.com wrote: This is good news, and helps a lot — thanks for taking the time to respond Joe. It may be a lot of work, but it would be great if you could reference the actual property names by URL for the properties you mentioned. //Ed On Jun 9, 2014, at 6:10 AM, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: Edward Yes Wikidata has a mechanism for adding qualifiers and references to claims. Where there are multiple values we can also mark one of them as preferred and then simple queries will just get the preferred value. For population figures each value would typically have qualifiers for * Point in time (when the population figure applies) * Determination method (census, estimate, whatever) * Applies to part (total, black, white, christian, muslim etc.) And each value would have a reference with the organisation, the url, the date the info was published, the date the info was retrieved etc. The most current total value would be marked as 'preferred'. Values which are widely known but considered unreliable would be included but marked 'deprecated'. All these properties have already been implemented and we are starting to add them to items. Hope this helps Joe On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 9:31 AM, rupert THURNER rupert.thur...@gmail.com wrote: hi alex, i saw on https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Economics a hint to provide sample data. would it be not an option to provide a couple of data points to make the life of persons easier, instead of making them open links and tables? rupert On Mon, Jun 9, 2014 at 3:55 AM, Alex Peek alexpe...@gmail.com wrote: We are a new project looking for volunteers. Project homepage: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/The_Global_Economic_Map Thanks, Alex ___ 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 ___ 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 ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
[Wikidata-l] Wikiquote Phase 2 is here
Hello everyone, Just a note that Wikiquote now has Phase 2 access. Some communities may need help with Lua and the general implementation of Phase 2 so please help as you can :) John Lewis ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
Hoi, I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been sniffing. It will just alienate them. Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. Thanks, GerardM On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: I think we should drop part of and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png Cheers, Micru On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include. A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the City of London (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), Greater London (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the City of London but does include the City of Westminster), all the built up areas out to the Metropolitan green belt (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed). When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor? Joe On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote: The class city is used for relatively large and permanent human settlement[s] [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of relatively). Maybe we should even wonder if city is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a human settlement is also rather clear. But drawing the line between village, city and town is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a city is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-) I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the human-readable pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? If you are aiming to do a search based on instances of 'city', we recommend you try instances of 'human settlement' instead... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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 -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ 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
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
Hi Gerard, I think we should not aim for a perfect system, just for a better one. In our case we don't need to reproduce all cases, just identify the most relevant ones and to clarify when to use each and label/describe them clearly. Part of is understood, but in so many possible ways that its meaning gets diluted into uselessness. Thanks, Micru On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been sniffing. It will just alienate them. Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. Thanks, GerardM On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: I think we should drop part of and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png Cheers, Micru On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include. A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the City of London (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), Greater London (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the City of London but does include the City of Westminster), all the built up areas out to the Metropolitan green belt (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed). When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor? Joe On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote: The class city is used for relatively large and permanent human settlement[s] [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of relatively). Maybe we should even wonder if city is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a human settlement is also rather clear. But drawing the line between village, city and town is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a city is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-) I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the human-readable pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? If you are aiming to do a search based on instances of 'city', we recommend you try instances of 'human settlement' instead... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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 -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ 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 -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Gadget
On 6/10/14, 8:15 AM, Derric Atzrott wrote: Also is the norm for this list HTML or Text email? plain text please! -- Legoktm ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
[Wikidata-l] Wikidata RDF exports
Hi all, We are now offering regular RDF dumps for the content of Wikidata: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/ RDF is the Resource Description Framework of the W3C that can be used to exchange data on the Web. The Wikidata RDF exports consist of several files that contain different parts and views of the data, and which can be used independently. Details on the available exports and the RDF encoding used in each can be found in the paper Introducing Wikidata to the Linked Data Web [1]. The available RDF exports can be found in the directory http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/. New exports are generated regularly from current data dumps of Wikidata and will appear in this directory shortly afterwards. All dump files have been generated using Wikidata Toolkit [2]. There are some important differences in comparison to earlier dumps: * Data is split into several dump files for convenience. Pick whatever you are most interested in. * All dumps are generated using the OpenRDF library for Java (better quality than ad hoc serialization; much slower too ;-) * All dumps are in N3 format, the simplest RDF serialization format that there is * In addition to the faithful dumps, some simplified dumps are also available (one statement = one triple; no qualifiers and references). * Links to external data sets are added to the data for Wikidata properties that point to datasets with RDF exports. That's the Linked in Linked Open Data. Suggestions for improvements and contributions on github are welcome. Cheers, Markus [1] http://korrekt.org/page/Introducing_Wikidata_to_the_Linked_Data_Web [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikidata_Toolkit -- Markus Kroetzsch Faculty of Computer Science Technische Universität Dresden +49 351 463 38486 http://korrekt.org/ ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Using external vocabularies (like RDA) in WikiData ?
2014-05-28 21:27 GMT+02:00 Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com: Like you I am not clear what the difference is between 'expression' and 'manifestation' and which of them corresponds to an 'edition' so we may or may not already be using those concepts. According to the last FRBR 2.0 draft,[1] the expression is the content of a work. It doesn't depend directly from the media it is possibly displayed on, but it cannot exist without the media, i.e. the text of a novel. The manifestation, on the contrary, is the physical edition of a work. It is strictly connected to the media it is displayed on, i.e. the 1834 French edition of Dante Alighieri's Divina Commedia, printed in Paris by Éditeur Incertain. [1] http://www.cidoc-crm.org/docs/frbr_oo//frbr_docs/FRBRoo_V2.0_draft_2013May.pdf Note that in many cases however the wikidata item about the work also describes the first edition so I guess that doesn't comply with FRBR. That is unlikely to change unless someone comes up with a use case where it causes real problems. It depends. It is possible that most of our properties may address the highest level, i.e. the work itself, but since we are going to have lots of items regarding specific editions (=manifestations) Note: I'm currently working at the Italian Institute for Libraries,[2] and among my tasks there is the translation of the UNIMARC-based data of the National Library Service[3] to FRBR, in order to finally export all those data into linked open data. [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istituto_Centrale_per_il_Catalogo_Unico [3] https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Servizio_bibliotecario_nazionale -- Luca Sannita Martinelli http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata RDF exports
Hoi, It is stated that there are no qualifiers included. In one of the articles you write that it is to be understood that the vailidity of the information is dependent on the existing qualifiers. What is the value of these RDF exports with the qualifiers missing? Thanks, GerardM On 10 June 2014 10:43, Markus Kroetzsch markus.kroetz...@tu-dresden.de wrote: Hi all, We are now offering regular RDF dumps for the content of Wikidata: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/ RDF is the Resource Description Framework of the W3C that can be used to exchange data on the Web. The Wikidata RDF exports consist of several files that contain different parts and views of the data, and which can be used independently. Details on the available exports and the RDF encoding used in each can be found in the paper Introducing Wikidata to the Linked Data Web [1]. The available RDF exports can be found in the directory http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/. New exports are generated regularly from current data dumps of Wikidata and will appear in this directory shortly afterwards. All dump files have been generated using Wikidata Toolkit [2]. There are some important differences in comparison to earlier dumps: * Data is split into several dump files for convenience. Pick whatever you are most interested in. * All dumps are generated using the OpenRDF library for Java (better quality than ad hoc serialization; much slower too ;-) * All dumps are in N3 format, the simplest RDF serialization format that there is * In addition to the faithful dumps, some simplified dumps are also available (one statement = one triple; no qualifiers and references). * Links to external data sets are added to the data for Wikidata properties that point to datasets with RDF exports. That's the Linked in Linked Open Data. Suggestions for improvements and contributions on github are welcome. Cheers, Markus [1] http://korrekt.org/page/Introducing_Wikidata_to_the_Linked_Data_Web [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikidata_Toolkit -- Markus Kroetzsch Faculty of Computer Science Technische Universität Dresden +49 351 463 38486 http://korrekt.org/ ___ 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
Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata query feature: status and plans
Hoi, As far as I am concerned, it is relevant to compare settlements in whatever country they are. A British city is always located in the United Kingdom and even more precise it is in the administrative unit of a county or whatever. When it is a city for historical reasons, this can be indicated with a qualifier. In this way it is is a settlement and the rest can be deduced. Having specific types of settlements for countries is imho not necessary in this way. Thanks, GerardM On 10 June 2014 22:14, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Gerard, I think we should not aim for a perfect system, just for a better one. In our case we don't need to reproduce all cases, just identify the most relevant ones and to clarify when to use each and label/describe them clearly. Part of is understood, but in so many possible ways that its meaning gets diluted into uselessness. Thanks, Micru On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been sniffing. It will just alienate them. Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. Thanks, GerardM On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com wrote: I think we should drop part of and start using a better mereological system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png Cheers, Micru On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire filceola...@gmail.com wrote: Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include. A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the City of London (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), Greater London (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the City of London but does include the City of Westminster), all the built up areas out to the Metropolitan green belt (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed). When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor? Joe On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk wrote: On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote: The class city is used for relatively large and permanent human settlement[s] [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of relatively). Maybe we should even wonder if city is a good class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a human settlement is also rather clear. But drawing the line between village, city and town is quite tricky, and will probably never be done uniformly across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling something as a city is one of those very slippery terms that everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious bit is :-) I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know this. Perhaps there is a role for the human-readable pages to have disambiguation-type notes on them? If you are aiming to do a search based on instances of 'city', we recommend you try instances of 'human settlement' instead... -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ 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 -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
