Re: [Wikidata] Is there an "indigenous to" for Plants ?

[Andy Mabbett]

On 22 September 2018 at 16:52, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> Is there a property for "indigenous to" or "native in" for Plants usage ?

The nearest I can find is:

   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P181

   "taxon range map image"

and:

   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1846

   "distribution map"

See also:

   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/30#P1846

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

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

[Wikidata] Is there an "indigenous to" for Plants ?

[Thad Guidry]

Hi Community !

Is there a property for "indigenous to" or "native in" for Plants usage ?

I only see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P2341 which is
constrained for People and not Animals or Plants.

Any discussion links about this before ?

Thanks in advance !
-Thad
+ThadGuidry 
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Mapping Wikidata to other ontologies

[Peter F. Patel-Schneider]

Hi:

Why did you use exact match (P2888) instead of equivalent class (P1709) and
equivalent property (P1628)?

peter


On 9/22/18 5:07 AM, Andra Waagmeester wrote:
> Hi Maarten,
> 
>     We are actively mapping to other ontologies using the exact match P2888
> property. The disease ontology is one example which is actively
> synchronized in Wikidata using the exact match property (P2888). This property
> is inspired by the SKOS:exact match property. SKOS it self had more mapping
> properties and I think it is a good idea to introduce some of the other SKOS
> mapping properties in Wikidata such broad match and narrow match. 
> 
> Andra
> 
> On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:30 AM Maarten Dammers  > wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Last week I presented Wikidata at the Semantics conference in Vienna (
> https://2018.semantics.cc/ ). One question I asked people was: What is
> keeping you from using Wikidata? One of the common responses is that
> it's quite hard to combine Wikidata with the rest of the semantic web.
> We have our own private ontology that's a bit on an island. Most of our
> triples are in our own private format and not available in a more
> generic, more widely use ontology.
> 
> Let's pick an example: Claude Lussan. No clue who he is, but my bot
> seems to have added some links and the item isn't too big. Our URI is
> http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729 and this is equivalent of
> http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396 and
> http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 . If you look at
> http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729.rdf this equivalence is
> represented as:
> http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396"/>
>  rdf:resource="http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111"/>
> 
> Also outputting it in a more generic way would probably make using it
> easier than it is right now. Last discussion about this was at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1921 , but no response
> since June.
> 
> That's one way of linking up, but another way is using equivalent
> property ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 ) and equivalent
> class ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1709 ). See for example
> sex or gender ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21) how it's
> mapped to other ontologies. This won't produce easier RDF, but some
> smart downstream users have figured out some SPARQL queries. So linking
> up our properties and classes to other ontologies will make using our
> data easier. This is a first step. Maybe it will be used in the future
> to generate more RDF, maybe not and we'll just document the SPARQL
> approach properly.
> 
> The equivalent property and equivalent class are used, but not that
> much. Did anyone already try a structured approach with reporting? I'm
> considering parsing popular ontology descriptions and producing reports
> of what is linked to what so it's easy to make missing links, but I
> don't want to do double work here.
> 
> What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of the
> ones I came across:
> * https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html
> * http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
> * http://schema.org/
> * https://creativecommons.org/ns
> * http://dbpedia.org/ontology/
> * http://vocab.org/open/
> Any suggestions?
> 
> Maarten
> 
> 
> ___
> 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] Mapping Wikidata to other ontologies

[Ettore RIZZA]

@Andra Waagmester: I am a little disconcerted by the property P288 "exact
match" . I see it is mostly
used to link entities, not properties, and I can't figure out how it
differs from an external id (unless it's just a convenient way of linking
concepts to databases that do not have an external id in Wikidata?)



On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 at 15:55, Peter F. Patel-Schneider <
pfpschnei...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It is indeed helpful to link the Wikidata ontologies to other ontologies,
> particularly ones like the DBpedia ontology and the schema.org ontology.
> There are already quite a few links from the Wikidata ontology to several
> other ontologies, using the Wikidata equivalent class and property
> properties.
>  Going through and ensuring that every class and property, for example, in
> the
> DBpedia ontology or the schema.org ontology is the target of a correct (!)
> link would be useful.   Then, as you indicate, it is not so hard to query
> Wikidata using the external ontology or map Wikidata information into
> information in the other ontology.
>
>
> The Wikidata ontology is much larger (almost two million classes) and much
> more fine grained than most (or maybe even all) other general-purpose
> ontologies.  This is appealing as one can be much more precise in Wikidata
> than in other ontologies.  It does make Wikidata harder to use (correctly)
> because to represent an entity in Wikidata one has to select among many
> more
> alternatives.
>
> This selection is harder than it should be.  The Wikidata ontology is not
> well
> organized.  The Wikidata ontology has errors in it.  There is not yet a
> good
> tool for visualizing or exploring the ontology (although there are some
> useful
> tools such as https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/WikidataClasses.php and
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html).
>
> So it is not trivial to set up good mappings from the Wikidata ontology to
> other ontologies.   When setting up equivalences one has to be careful to
> select the Wikidata class or property that is actually equivalent to the
> external class or property as opposed to a Wikidata class or property that
> just happens to have a similar or the same label.  One also has to be
> similarly careful when setting up other relationships between the Wikidata
> ontology and other ontologies.   As well, one has to be careful to select
> good
> relationships that have well-defined meanings.  (Some SKOS relationships
> are
> particuarly suspect.)  I suggest using only strict generalization and
> specialization relationships.
>
>
> So I think that an effort to completely and correctly map several external
> general-purpose ontologies into the Wikidata ontology would be something
> for
> the Wikidata community to support.  Pick a few good external ontologies and
> put the needed effort into adding any missing mappings and checking the
> mappings that already exist.   Get someone or some group to commit to
> keeping
> the mapping up to date.  Announce the results and show how they are useful.
>
>
> Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> Nuance Communications
>
>
> On 9/22/18 4:28 AM, Maarten Dammers wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > Last week I presented Wikidata at the Semantics conference in Vienna (
> > https://2018.semantics.cc/ ). One question I asked people was: What is
> keeping
> > you from using Wikidata? One of the common responses is that it's quite
> hard
> > to combine Wikidata with the rest of the semantic web. We have our own
> private
> > ontology that's a bit on an island. Most of our triples are in our own
> private
> > format and not available in a more generic, more widely use ontology.
> >
> > Let's pick an example: Claude Lussan. No clue who he is, but my bot
> seems to
> > have added some links and the item isn't too big. Our URI is
> > http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729 and this is equivalent of
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396 and
> > http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 . If you look at
> > http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729.rdf this equivalence is
> represented as:
> > http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396"/>
> > http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111
> "/>
> >
> > Also outputting it in a more generic way would probably make using it
> easier
> > than it is right now. Last discussion about this was at
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1921 , but no response
> since June.
> >
> > That's one way of linking up, but another way is using equivalent
> property (
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 ) and equivalent class (
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1709 ). See for example sex or
> gender
> > ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21) how it's mapped to other
> > ontologies. This won't produce easier RDF, but some smart downstream
> users
> > have figured out some SPARQL queries. So linking up our properties and
> classes
> > to other ontologies will make using our data easier. This is a first
> s

Re: [Wikidata] Mapping Wikidata to other ontologies

[Peter F. Patel-Schneider]

It is indeed helpful to link the Wikidata ontologies to other ontologies,
particularly ones like the DBpedia ontology and the schema.org ontology.
There are already quite a few links from the Wikidata ontology to several
other ontologies, using the Wikidata equivalent class and property properties.
 Going through and ensuring that every class and property, for example, in the
DBpedia ontology or the schema.org ontology is the target of a correct (!)
link would be useful.   Then, as you indicate, it is not so hard to query
Wikidata using the external ontology or map Wikidata information into
information in the other ontology.


The Wikidata ontology is much larger (almost two million classes) and much
more fine grained than most (or maybe even all) other general-purpose
ontologies.  This is appealing as one can be much more precise in Wikidata
than in other ontologies.  It does make Wikidata harder to use (correctly)
because to represent an entity in Wikidata one has to select among many more
alternatives.

This selection is harder than it should be.  The Wikidata ontology is not well
organized.  The Wikidata ontology has errors in it.  There is not yet a good
tool for visualizing or exploring the ontology (although there are some useful
tools such as https://tools.wmflabs.org/bambots/WikidataClasses.php and
http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/tree.html).

So it is not trivial to set up good mappings from the Wikidata ontology to
other ontologies.   When setting up equivalences one has to be careful to
select the Wikidata class or property that is actually equivalent to the
external class or property as opposed to a Wikidata class or property that
just happens to have a similar or the same label.  One also has to be
similarly careful when setting up other relationships between the Wikidata
ontology and other ontologies.   As well, one has to be careful to select good
relationships that have well-defined meanings.  (Some SKOS relationships are
particuarly suspect.)  I suggest using only strict generalization and
specialization relationships.


So I think that an effort to completely and correctly map several external
general-purpose ontologies into the Wikidata ontology would be something for
the Wikidata community to support.  Pick a few good external ontologies and
put the needed effort into adding any missing mappings and checking the
mappings that already exist.   Get someone or some group to commit to keeping
the mapping up to date.  Announce the results and show how they are useful.


Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Nuance Communications


On 9/22/18 4:28 AM, Maarten Dammers wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> Last week I presented Wikidata at the Semantics conference in Vienna (
> https://2018.semantics.cc/ ). One question I asked people was: What is keeping
> you from using Wikidata? One of the common responses is that it's quite hard
> to combine Wikidata with the rest of the semantic web. We have our own private
> ontology that's a bit on an island. Most of our triples are in our own private
> format and not available in a more generic, more widely use ontology.
> 
> Let's pick an example: Claude Lussan. No clue who he is, but my bot seems to
> have added some links and the item isn't too big. Our URI is
> http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729 and this is equivalent of
> http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396 and
> http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 . If you look at
> http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729.rdf this equivalence is represented 
> as:
> http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396"/>
> http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111"/>
> 
> Also outputting it in a more generic way would probably make using it easier
> than it is right now. Last discussion about this was at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1921 , but no response since 
> June.
> 
> That's one way of linking up, but another way is using equivalent property (
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 ) and equivalent class (
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1709 ). See for example sex or gender
> ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21) how it's mapped to other
> ontologies. This won't produce easier RDF, but some smart downstream users
> have figured out some SPARQL queries. So linking up our properties and classes
> to other ontologies will make using our data easier. This is a first step.
> Maybe it will be used in the future to generate more RDF, maybe not and we'll
> just document the SPARQL approach properly.
> 
> The equivalent property and equivalent class are used, but not that much. Did
> anyone already try a structured approach with reporting? I'm considering
> parsing popular ontology descriptions and producing reports of what is linked
> to what so it's easy to make missing links, but I don't want to do double work
> here.
> 
> What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of the ones I
> came across:
> * https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html
> * http://xmlns.com/fo

Re: [Wikidata] Mapping Wikidata to other ontologies

[Iván Hernández Cazorla]

Interesting. I am very interested in this topic. Is there a page on
Wikidata where all this information is collected? One day I read about
the disease ontology mentioned by Andra Waagmeester. But I don't know
where I can track the progress of the mapping, not only to the disease
ontology.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,
Iván

On 9/22/18 1:13 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) wrote:
> Maarten Dammers, 22/09/2018 14:28:
>> What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of
>> the ones I came across:
>> * https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html
>> * http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
>> * http://schema.org/
> 
> Since 2016 there was some progress:
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/280
> https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1186
> 
> The last time I looked into it was for music:
> https://www.wikidata.org/?oldid=297764900#schema.org/MusicRecording
> 
> Mapping properties is tedious but a relatively amount of work (tens of
> hours rather than hundreds) can make a significant difference.
> 
> Federico
> 
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

-- 
Iván Hernández Cazorla
Historiador e interesado en las humanidades digitales
Miembro de Wikimedia España
https://ivanhercaz.com | https://keybase.io/ivanhercaz
<>

signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Mapping Wikidata to other ontologies

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Maarten Dammers, 22/09/2018 14:28:
What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of the 
ones I came across:

* https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html
* http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
* http://schema.org/


Since 2016 there was some progress:
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/280
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1186

The last time I looked into it was for music:
https://www.wikidata.org/?oldid=297764900#schema.org/MusicRecording

Mapping properties is tedious but a relatively amount of work (tens of 
hours rather than hundreds) can make a significant difference.


Federico

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

Re: [Wikidata] Mapping Wikidata to other ontologies

[Andra Waagmeester]

Hi Maarten,

We are actively mapping to other ontologies using the exact match P2888
property. The disease ontology is one example which is actively
synchronized in Wikidata using the exact match property (P2888). This
property is inspired by the SKOS:exact match property. SKOS it self had
more mapping properties and I think it is a good idea to introduce some of
the other SKOS mapping properties in Wikidata such broad match and narrow
match.

Andra

On Sat, Sep 22, 2018 at 7:30 AM Maarten Dammers  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Last week I presented Wikidata at the Semantics conference in Vienna (
> https://2018.semantics.cc/ ). One question I asked people was: What is
> keeping you from using Wikidata? One of the common responses is that
> it's quite hard to combine Wikidata with the rest of the semantic web.
> We have our own private ontology that's a bit on an island. Most of our
> triples are in our own private format and not available in a more
> generic, more widely use ontology.
>
> Let's pick an example: Claude Lussan. No clue who he is, but my bot
> seems to have added some links and the item isn't too big. Our URI is
> http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729 and this is equivalent of
> http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396 and
> http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 . If you look at
> http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729.rdf this equivalence is
> represented as:
> http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396"/>
> http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111
> "/>
>
> Also outputting it in a more generic way would probably make using it
> easier than it is right now. Last discussion about this was at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1921 , but no response
> since June.
>
> That's one way of linking up, but another way is using equivalent
> property ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 ) and equivalent
> class ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1709 ). See for example
> sex or gender ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21) how it's
> mapped to other ontologies. This won't produce easier RDF, but some
> smart downstream users have figured out some SPARQL queries. So linking
> up our properties and classes to other ontologies will make using our
> data easier. This is a first step. Maybe it will be used in the future
> to generate more RDF, maybe not and we'll just document the SPARQL
> approach properly.
>
> The equivalent property and equivalent class are used, but not that
> much. Did anyone already try a structured approach with reporting? I'm
> considering parsing popular ontology descriptions and producing reports
> of what is linked to what so it's easy to make missing links, but I
> don't want to do double work here.
>
> What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of the
> ones I came across:
> * https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html
> * http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
> * http://schema.org/
> * https://creativecommons.org/ns
> * http://dbpedia.org/ontology/
> * http://vocab.org/open/
> Any suggestions?
>
> Maarten
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping Wikidata to other ontologies

[Ettore RIZZA]

Hi,

I fully agree on the usefulness of this mapping.

Out of 5311 properties, only 232 have equivalents in other schemes

(although
the many external ids are special cases since they are equivalent to some
kind of owl:sameAs.)

If I can help in this job, I'm interested.

Cheers,

Ettore Rizza

On Sat, 22 Sep 2018 at 13:29, Maarten Dammers  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> Last week I presented Wikidata at the Semantics conference in Vienna (
> https://2018.semantics.cc/ ). One question I asked people was: What is
> keeping you from using Wikidata? One of the common responses is that
> it's quite hard to combine Wikidata with the rest of the semantic web.
> We have our own private ontology that's a bit on an island. Most of our
> triples are in our own private format and not available in a more
> generic, more widely use ontology.
>
> Let's pick an example: Claude Lussan. No clue who he is, but my bot
> seems to have added some links and the item isn't too big. Our URI is
> http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729 and this is equivalent of
> http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396 and
> http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 . If you look at
> http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729.rdf this equivalence is
> represented as:
> http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396"/>
> http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111
> "/>
>
> Also outputting it in a more generic way would probably make using it
> easier than it is right now. Last discussion about this was at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1921 , but no response
> since June.
>
> That's one way of linking up, but another way is using equivalent
> property ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 ) and equivalent
> class ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1709 ). See for example
> sex or gender ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21) how it's
> mapped to other ontologies. This won't produce easier RDF, but some
> smart downstream users have figured out some SPARQL queries. So linking
> up our properties and classes to other ontologies will make using our
> data easier. This is a first step. Maybe it will be used in the future
> to generate more RDF, maybe not and we'll just document the SPARQL
> approach properly.
>
> The equivalent property and equivalent class are used, but not that
> much. Did anyone already try a structured approach with reporting? I'm
> considering parsing popular ontology descriptions and producing reports
> of what is linked to what so it's easy to make missing links, but I
> don't want to do double work here.
>
> What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of the
> ones I came across:
> * https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html
> * http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
> * http://schema.org/
> * https://creativecommons.org/ns
> * http://dbpedia.org/ontology/
> * http://vocab.org/open/
> Any suggestions?
>
> Maarten
>
>
> ___
> 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] Mapping Wikidata to other ontologies

[Maarten Dammers]

Hi everyone,

Last week I presented Wikidata at the Semantics conference in Vienna ( 
https://2018.semantics.cc/ ). One question I asked people was: What is 
keeping you from using Wikidata? One of the common responses is that 
it's quite hard to combine Wikidata with the rest of the semantic web. 
We have our own private ontology that's a bit on an island. Most of our 
triples are in our own private format and not available in a more 
generic, more widely use ontology.


Let's pick an example: Claude Lussan. No clue who he is, but my bot 
seems to have added some links and the item isn't too big. Our URI is 
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729 and this is equivalent of 
http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396 and 
http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111 . If you look at 
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q2977729.rdf this equivalence is 
represented as:

http://viaf.org/viaf/29578396"/>
http://data.bibliotheken.nl/id/thes/p173983111"/>

Also outputting it in a more generic way would probably make using it 
easier than it is right now. Last discussion about this was at 
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P1921 , but no response 
since June.


That's one way of linking up, but another way is using equivalent 
property ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1628 ) and equivalent 
class ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1709 ). See for example 
sex or gender ( https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21) how it's 
mapped to other ontologies. This won't produce easier RDF, but some 
smart downstream users have figured out some SPARQL queries. So linking 
up our properties and classes to other ontologies will make using our 
data easier. This is a first step. Maybe it will be used in the future 
to generate more RDF, maybe not and we'll just document the SPARQL 
approach properly.


The equivalent property and equivalent class are used, but not that 
much. Did anyone already try a structured approach with reporting? I'm 
considering parsing popular ontology descriptions and producing reports 
of what is linked to what so it's easy to make missing links, but I 
don't want to do double work here.


What ontologies are important because these are used a lot? Some of the 
ones I came across:

* https://www.w3.org/2009/08/skos-reference/skos.html
* http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/
* http://schema.org/
* https://creativecommons.org/ns
* http://dbpedia.org/ontology/
* http://vocab.org/open/
Any suggestions?

Maarten


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