On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Susanna Ånäs <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 p402<https://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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
