Re: [Wikidata] Preferred rank -- choices for infoboxes, versus SPARQL

2015-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
Most of these could be / should be qualifiers. Several are historic and no
longer valid.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 29 November 2015 at 23:42, James Heald  wrote:

> If we look at Glasgow,
>  https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4093
>
> the values for P31 in question are:
>
> Q515   -- city
> Q15060255  -- council area
> Q7309443   -- registration county
> Q202435-- lieutenancy area of Scotland
> Q21457810  -- Scottish district (1975 to 1996)
>
> Each of those statuses is different and independent (even in a purely
> Scottish context):  none of them implies any of the others, none of them is
> implied by any of the others.
>
> So, in this case, I don't see that "city of Scotland" would help at all.
>
>   -- James.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 29/11/2015 17:56, Joe Filceolaire wrote:
>
>> Why have instance of item and instance of superclass of that item?
>> If Glasgow is instance of : city of Scotland  and
>> City of Scotland is subclass of : city
>> Then we should not have Glasgow instance of : city
>>
>> This principle should cut down a lot of these extra 'instances '
>>
>> Joe
>>
>> On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:51 Federico Leva (Nemo) 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Gerard Meijssen, 28/11/2015 07:05:
>>>
 A big city is what? A city with more than a given number of inhabitants?
 If so it is redundant because it can be inferred.

>>>
>>> Criteria might be defined by local law and/or require some
>>> administrative act. That's how it works in Italy, for instance.
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata mailing list
>>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Preferred rank -- choices for infoboxes, versus SPARQL

2015-11-29 Thread James Heald 

If we look at Glasgow,
 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4093

the values for P31 in question are:

Q515   -- city
Q15060255  -- council area
Q7309443   -- registration county
Q202435-- lieutenancy area of Scotland
Q21457810  -- Scottish district (1975 to 1996)

Each of those statuses is different and independent (even in a purely 
Scottish context):  none of them implies any of the others, none of them 
is implied by any of the others.


So, in this case, I don't see that "city of Scotland" would help at all.

  -- James.




On 29/11/2015 17:56, Joe Filceolaire wrote:

Why have instance of item and instance of superclass of that item?
If Glasgow is instance of : city of Scotland  and
City of Scotland is subclass of : city
Then we should not have Glasgow instance of : city

This principle should cut down a lot of these extra 'instances '

Joe

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:51 Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:


Gerard Meijssen, 28/11/2015 07:05:

A big city is what? A city with more than a given number of inhabitants?
If so it is redundant because it can be inferred.


Criteria might be defined by local law and/or require some
administrative act. That's how it works in Italy, for instance.

Nemo

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata





___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata




___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Preferred rank -- choices for infoboxes, versus SPARQL

2015-11-29 Thread Markus Krötzsch 

On 28.11.2015 16:51, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:

Gerard Meijssen, 28/11/2015 07:05:

A big city is what? A city with more than a given number of inhabitants?
If so it is redundant because it can be inferred.


Criteria might be defined by local law and/or require some
administrative act. That's how it works in Italy, for instance.


German actually has a noun "Großstadt" ("big city"), which has a fixed 
meaning to be a city with at least 100,000 inhabitants. The noun is now 
widely used as a native expression in everyday German, unlike the 
descriptive English translation "big city" (which feels to English 
speakers like "große Stadt" would feel to German speakers). It is an 
example of a concept that natively exists in some languages but not in 
others.


The important clarification to Gerard's reply is that this is not a case 
of an over-specific Wikipedia category that somehow became a Wikidata 
class. Rather, it is a concept that is natural to some languages and not 
to others. It's a challenge for Wikidata to deal with this, clearly. 
Nevertheless, from my point of view, a classification that integrates 
concepts from many cultures/languages is preferable over many disjointed 
classifications that are perfectly aligned with one particular 
culture/language.


Markus


___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Preferred rank -- choices for infoboxes, versus SPARQL

2015-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
Many of such baggage is legacy of Wikipedia. There is no point in storing
that a city is in any specific place or of a specific size by making it
what it is. It is all implied. The category:Scottish city can be implied
from what administrative entity it is part of and from defining a city in
whatever way. For instance Zwaag has "city rights" and nowadays it is not
even a municipality. It however may be known as a "city" by having
appropriate properties.

We should cut down on baggage if only to improve our "quality".
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 29 November 2015 at 18:56, Joe Filceolaire  wrote:

> Why have instance of item and instance of superclass of that item?
> If Glasgow is instance of : city of Scotland  and
> City of Scotland is subclass of : city
> Then we should not have Glasgow instance of : city
>
> This principle should cut down a lot of these extra 'instances '
>
> Joe
>
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:51 Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen, 28/11/2015 07:05:
>> > A big city is what? A city with more than a given number of inhabitants?
>> > If so it is redundant because it can be inferred.
>>
>> Criteria might be defined by local law and/or require some
>> administrative act. That's how it works in Italy, for instance.
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Preferred rank -- choices for infoboxes, versus SPARQL

2015-11-29 Thread Joe Filceolaire 
Why have instance of item and instance of superclass of that item?
If Glasgow is instance of : city of Scotland  and
City of Scotland is subclass of : city
Then we should not have Glasgow instance of : city

This principle should cut down a lot of these extra 'instances '

Joe

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 15:51 Federico Leva (Nemo)  wrote:

> Gerard Meijssen, 28/11/2015 07:05:
> > A big city is what? A city with more than a given number of inhabitants?
> > If so it is redundant because it can be inferred.
>
> Criteria might be defined by local law and/or require some
> administrative act. That's how it works in Italy, for instance.
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Mix'n'match: how to preserve manually audited items for posterity?

2015-11-29 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
Hoi,
I have merged your Grasulf with the one that existed. I did it based on the
documentation you provided a source for :)
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 27 November 2015 at 19:41, Dario Taraborelli 
wrote:

> oh I see, what a mess those Grisulfs, the family relationships are totally
> messed up, off to clean them up.
>
> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:38 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> I do not know how to as there are two candidates. I do not have your book
> that helps pick the right one.  I have added some statements so that
> disambiguation is even easier. Reasonator is a great tool :)
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 27 November 2015 at 19:35, Dario Taraborelli <
> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> err…point me to the correct item or fix it then? WP:BOLD
>>
>>
>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Hoi,
>> It is highly likely that your Lombard duke already existed. So I think
>> you got it wrong.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On 27 November 2015 at 19:31, Dario Taraborelli <
>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Gerard – I think you’re missing my point. I’m not suggesting this as a
>>> display feature (which would be welcome and can always be generated by any
>>> tool querying Wikidata labels) but as a contribution *stored* to avoid
>>> future errors.
>>>
>>> On Nov 27, 2015, at 10:29 AM, Gerard Meijssen 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Why not use Reasonator?
>>> https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?find=Grasulfo
>>> Thanks,
>>>  GerardM
>>>
>>> On 27 November 2015 at 19:26, Dario Taraborelli <
>>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
 Magnus, this is fantastic and works as expected, thanks a lot.

 One last note regarding the use of *different from* (P1889
 ). While I agree with
 you that it would be overkill to generate all these relations for common
 homonyms, for new items created by Mix’n’match with the above tweak, where
 a single other notable individual was previously missing from Wikidata (and
 when no matching label can be found), it would be tremendously useful to
 automatically add a two-way relation (see for example *Grasulfo* (
 Q3775839 ) <—> *different from*
  (P1889 ) <—> *Grasulfo *
 (Q21571734 ). Having this
 property added would save me 2 extra edits and permanently store
 disambiguation signal for future reference.

 Thoughts?

 On Nov 24, 2015, at 9:54 AM, Luca Martinelli 
 wrote:

 <3

 L.
 Il 23/nov/2015 21:05, "Magnus Manske"  ha
 scritto:

> Done.
>
> On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 12:25 PM Asaf Bartov 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Dario Taraborelli <
>> dtarabore...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 21, 2015, at 10:31, Magnus Manske <
>>> magnusman...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>> A soultion could be to change the "not on Wikidata" button (or link)
>>> to a "create new item" button. The new item would have a label, a
>>> description (maybe), a statement with the catalog ID (if there is an
>>> associated WIkidata property!), and "instance of:human" if the entry is
>>> internally marked as "person", but nothing else.
>>>
>>>
>>> Would that be welcomed by "mix'n'matchers", and Wikidata people? I
>>> think it would make sense, for catalogs with a Wikidata property at 
>>> least.
>>>
>>>
>>> I would strongly support this, with the restrictions you suggest.
>>>
>>
>> +1.  This would be good.
>>
>> A.
>>
>> --
>> Asaf Bartov
>> Wikimedia Foundation 
>>
>> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share
>> in the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>> https://donate.wikimedia.org
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
> ___
 Wikidata mailing list
 Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata




 *Dario Taraborelli  *Head of Research, Wikimedia Foundation
 wikimediafoundation.org • nitens.org • @readermeter
 


 ___
 Wikidata mailing list
 Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata


>>> _