Re: [Wikidata-l] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
Am 20/mar/2014 um 07:58 schrieb Susanna Ånäs susanna.a...@gmail.com: Do the notability guidelines of Wikimedia allow storing only important places? because the consequence of using wikidata will be to have wikidata objects not only for places but also for minor streets and squares as soon as they change name (most of these will not have Wikipedia articles) cheers, Martin ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
There is interaction between Wikidata, the OHM, the historians working with gazetteers, LOD researchers and Jochen Topf Tim Alder's work. The Wikimaps project is trying to stay abreast of the development to build on that. I think also that Wikidata will lead the way and will offer a crowdsourced platform for place names across times. The open questions would be related to the choice of labels when displaying, while Wikidata itself would be able to store many different names, languages and alternatives. Discussion is needed for the modelling, eg. if a place is one entity with changing properties or if a place is a linked continuum of separate places. What properties to store, how to link? How can the data be linked to say OSM DB entities? Do the notability guidelines of Wikimedia allow storing only important places? So, in short, the most natural site for discussion is the wikidata-l list (now cc:d) Best, Susanna Ånäs wikimaps.wikimedia.fi 2014-03-19 22:59 GMT+02:00 Laurence Penney l...@lorp.org: It's great to have such things mapped, but it does need care. In this field Jochen Topf coded Multilingual Map Test together back in 2012. You might ask him to add Finnish to the languages offered. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/2012-November/065312.html Here's part of Poland, shown with German labels: http://mlm.jochentopf.com/?zoom=7lat=52.57802lon=19.11621layers=B0Tlang=de While the larger cities have well-known and current German names that are uncontroversial -- Warschau, Posen, Breslau, etc. -- many small towns and villages would only have been given German names during the Third Reich. It is therefore contentious to use the name:de tag for these places, unless one is making a map of occupied Poland during WW2. The naming was a political act, and most of the names were not used by Germans, even those living in the vicinity, before 1939 or after 1945. Taking politics out of it, perhaps one could use the date to indicate when the name was in use, thus a key of name:de(1939-1945). It would be good to speak to historians who specialize in this area. - L On 19 Mar 2014, at 20:37, Chris Helenius chris.helen...@gmail.com wrote: How are historical place names from annexed countries regarded? Or put in another way; when does a name no longer exist? In the case on Finland, which lost Karelia to Russia in the 1950s, hundreds of place names were translated and are now officially Russian, with the Finnish population gone. Former place names could nevertheless be of historical value (e.g. to see the geographical extent of the language), as physical historical features are. The question is, does a name disappear when it is no longer used? Larger cities are still called by their Finnish names in a Finnish context, so would towns and villages be any different? Or when they are deserted? There is also the unignorable issue of geopolitics, as there are still tensions between the countries. There is no shortage of geographical naming disputes ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Geographical_naming_disputes), and wikipedians themselves had a row over geographical names. ( http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/05/China_Japan_Wikipedia_War_Senkaku_Diaoyu?page=full ) I can imagine how the naming could be seen having a political agenda. For what it's worth, my agenda is only historical, although I can't shrug off my national bias. Before I go and add name:fi= place-names, I'd like to hear what the community thinks of this. Chris Helenius ___ Historic mailing list histo...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic ___ Historic mailing list histo...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
Hoi, It is in the planning that Wikidata will use its engine for Wikimedia Commons. We are talking about the media files that is currently only 20,503,455 freely usable media files. The model that is considered is one where two Wikidata databases will be used. One for the meta data of the imagery and one for the more globally relevant information. A similar thing can be considered for streets and stuff as well. Obviously it needs a lot of thought but from an abstract point of view, a street or an image, it is just another category of data. When it works for one type of data it could / should work for another type of data as well. Thanks, Gerard On 20 March 2014 08:37, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com wrote: Am 20/mar/2014 um 07:58 schrieb Susanna Ånäs susanna.a...@gmail.com: Do the notability guidelines of Wikimedia allow storing only important places? because the consequence of using wikidata will be to have wikidata objects not only for places but also for minor streets and squares as soon as they change name (most of these will not have Wikipedia articles) cheers, Martin ___ 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] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
On 20 March 2014 06:58, Susanna Ånäs susanna.a...@gmail.com wrote: [Snip other interesting stuff; CCs again trimmed] Do the notability guidelines of Wikimedia allow storing only important places? English Wikipedia has a de facto guideline of considering any settlement which is on a reliable and independent map or gazetteer to be notable enough to have an article; (the current draft proposal to formalise this is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NGEO Wikidata notability guidelines accept anything with a Wikipedia article (in any language) *or* which is a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. -- 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] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: A similar thing can be considered for streets and stuff as well. Obviously it needs a lot of thought but from an abstract point of view, a street or an image, it is just another category of data. When it works for one type of data it could / should work for another type of data as well. In that regard perhaps it would make more sense for OSM or another entity to run a Wikibase Repository dedicated exclusively to geographic entities/names. Thanks, Micru ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
I think wikidata has the potential to tie it all together. There is no need to split the information over 2 databases. What would be nice, is a way to say: this object is now split/merged. Save the current version in OSM and save the historic version of those objects in OHM. And all the metadata and in wikidata. Then point from OSM and OHM to wikidata. Use Overpass to retrieve the relevant objects based on their ids in wikidata. Polyglot 2014-03-20 11:51 GMT+01:00 David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: A similar thing can be considered for streets and stuff as well. Obviously it needs a lot of thought but from an abstract point of view, a street or an image, it is just another category of data. When it works for one type of data it could / should work for another type of data as well. In that regard perhaps it would make more sense for OSM or another entity to run a Wikibase Repository dedicated exclusively to geographic entities/names. Thanks, Micru ___ 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] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: I think wikidata has the potential to tie it all together. There is no need to split the information over 2 databases. It depends on how much granularity you want. If you want to use just well-known entities, then for sure, wikidata can tie it all together. If you want street level (or even building level) information, that would be too much for Wikidata. There was already a similar discussion regarding bibliographic data. Should Wikidata collect *all* bibliographic data? And the consensus was not all, just what is relevant as hinted by Wikipedia/Wikisource (and common sense). Cheers, Micru ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
Given that we want to collaborate with openstreetmap we could host it for them Thanks GerardM Op 20 mrt. 2014 11:53 schreef David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: A similar thing can be considered for streets and stuff as well. Obviously it needs a lot of thought but from an abstract point of view, a street or an image, it is just another category of data. When it works for one type of data it could / should work for another type of data as well. In that regard perhaps it would make more sense for OSM or another entity to run a Wikibase Repository dedicated exclusively to geographic entities/names. Thanks, Micru ___ 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] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.comwrote: Given that we want to collaborate with openstreetmap we could host it for them I like the idea of a Wikibase-powered OSM data repository, it is a pity that the WM Incubator is only for language versions of existing projects and not for new projects... OTOH, since Wikidata is (or is supposed to be) language-agnostic, couldn't we argue that domain-specific data projects are to wikidata what language editions are to wikipedia? I wonder how hard would be to set-up a labs Wikibase instance for OSM developers to experiment with it? Or even if it would be enough interest? Thanks, Micru ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
I sense a bit of consensus even across the projects. I think both options have their pros and cons: An independent project will require a lot of MediaWiki related knowledge that is not necessarily found in an initial group of interested individuals. Or combined OSM, MediaWiki Wikidata knowledge, which may be even more sparse. It would be more relaxed in regard to rules and guidelines. Could it be re-integrated to Wikidata later, or would it run to in-evident oblivion? An integrated path would require complying to all guidelines eg. re: notability. It would cause a lot of waiting time for reaching consensus while defining properties - which is also needed in an independent project. Once consensus would be achieved, the development could be fast. There would be continuous maintenance and development in relation to the main Wikidata project. This option would require a lot of negotiating between the Wikimedia project/community, the OSM/OHM project/community and also those who have done research on the topics outside these projects. It might prove impossible. In the end, the data would be more easily integrated to other kinds of data, and adopted outside the project for reuse. Are you going to be in the Zürich hackathon to discuss this? Susanna 2014-03-20 17:28 GMT+02:00 David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Given that we want to collaborate with openstreetmap we could host it for them I like the idea of a Wikibase-powered OSM data repository, it is a pity that the WM Incubator is only for language versions of existing projects and not for new projects... OTOH, since Wikidata is (or is supposed to be) language-agnostic, couldn't we argue that domain-specific data projects are to wikidata what language editions are to wikipedia? I wonder how hard would be to set-up a labs Wikibase instance for OSM developers to experiment with it? Or even if it would be enough interest? Thanks, Micru ___ 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] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Susanna Ånäs susanna.a...@gmail.comwrote: An independent project will require a lot of MediaWiki related knowledge that is not necessarily found in an initial group of interested individuals. Or combined OSM, MediaWiki Wikidata knowledge, which may be even more sparse. It would be more relaxed in regard to rules and guidelines. Could it be re-integrated to Wikidata later, or would it run to in-evident oblivion? It could be re-integrated, but I wouldn't start a wikibase repo only for the specific case of historical data. If there is a sizeable community that could mantain a full-fledged repository of geographic entities (as understood in Wikidata terms), then the historic information could be a subset of that. OSM can do it (and actually it is being done more or less), but that is something that should be decided by their community. An integrated path would require complying to all guidelines eg. re: notability. It would cause a lot of waiting time for reaching consensus while defining properties - which is also needed in an independent project. I think the main intersection points are entities and properties. With entities it is already happening (using property p402https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P402), but with properties we still have no technical means of saying this property in WD is the same as this other property in project X. Are you going to be in the Zürich hackathon to discuss this? Not sure yet, but I have seen that Katie and Daniel will be there and they have a deeper technical knowledge than me :) Cheers, Micru ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
Using property P402 is not a very good idea since object ids in OSM aren't guaranteed to be stable. nodes, ways and relations each have their own 'namespace' and sometimes information is refined by moving it from a node to a way or from a node or a way to a relation (multipolygon), usually this means he original object vanishes and property P402 isn't pointing anywhere anymore. The only way that makes sense is to add wikidata tags to OSM objects. Polyglot 2014-03-20 18:21 GMT+01:00 David Cuenca dacu...@gmail.com: On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Susanna Ånäs susanna.a...@gmail.comwrote: An independent project will require a lot of MediaWiki related knowledge that is not necessarily found in an initial group of interested individuals. Or combined OSM, MediaWiki Wikidata knowledge, which may be even more sparse. It would be more relaxed in regard to rules and guidelines. Could it be re-integrated to Wikidata later, or would it run to in-evident oblivion? It could be re-integrated, but I wouldn't start a wikibase repo only for the specific case of historical data. If there is a sizeable community that could mantain a full-fledged repository of geographic entities (as understood in Wikidata terms), then the historic information could be a subset of that. OSM can do it (and actually it is being done more or less), but that is something that should be decided by their community. An integrated path would require complying to all guidelines eg. re: notability. It would cause a lot of waiting time for reaching consensus while defining properties – which is also needed in an independent project. I think the main intersection points are entities and properties. With entities it is already happening (using property p402https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P402), but with properties we still have no technical means of saying this property in WD is the same as this other property in project X. Are you going to be in the Zürich hackathon to discuss this? Not sure yet, but I have seen that Katie and Daniel will be there and they have a deeper technical knowledge than me :) Cheers, Micru ___ 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] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Jo winfi...@gmail.com wrote: Using property P402 is not a very good idea since object ids in OSM aren't guaranteed to be stable. nodes, ways and relations each have their own 'namespace' and sometimes information is refined by moving it from a node to a way or from a node or a way to a relation (multipolygon), usually this means he original object vanishes and property P402 isn't pointing anywhere anymore. The only way that makes sense is to add wikidata tags to OSM objects. Or that OSM would have their own repository of entities and then we would interlink both ;) Cheers, Micru ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Re: [Wikidata-l] [OHM] Should we map former endonyms?
This notability guideline for geographic features, both current and historical, will indeed be a cornestone for building upon Wikidata! It would not include all man-made structures yet, but I hope that would be the trend. I hope we can develop tools and technologies to bridge the data between OSM/OHM and Wikidata. Susanna 2014-03-20 11:51 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett a...@pigsonthewing.org.uk: On 20 March 2014 06:58, Susanna Ånäs susanna.a...@gmail.com wrote: [Snip other interesting stuff; CCs again trimmed] Do the notability guidelines of Wikimedia allow storing only important places? English Wikipedia has a de facto guideline of considering any settlement which is on a reliable and independent map or gazetteer to be notable enough to have an article; (the current draft proposal to formalise this is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:NGEO Wikidata notability guidelines accept anything with a Wikipedia article (in any language) *or* which is a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references. -- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk ___ Historic mailing list histo...@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/historic ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
