Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Dear Martynas, I understand your concern. Markus already commented on the Quads and the fact that there are no where used in the way you suggest it. I am thankful for critically accompanying our design phase, but I would again ask you for some patience until we have the RDF mapping drafted. We ar

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

On 07/04/12 10:37, Ivan Herman wrote: Markus et al, what you are saying is true. However... the RDF Working Group that is currently in operation will, hopefully, come up with a proposed syntax (probably based on TriG) and, more importantly, some sort of a semantics for named graphs, hopefully

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Markus et al, what you are saying is true. However... the RDF Working Group that is currently in operation will, hopefully, come up with a proposed syntax (probably based on TriG) and, more importantly, some sort of a semantics for named graphs, hopefully in alignment with SPARQL. I cannot say,

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

On 06.04.2012 14:28, Martynas Jusevicius wrote: > Hey again, > > "getting over" wasn't meant to be harsh. I was hoping though "wiki" in > "Wikidata" stands for a the broader concept of "free and open", and > not a particular syntax for encoding knowledge. Dear Martynas As stated in the proposal,

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Binàris, then you should coin a crystal clear definition of snak (could it be made an acronym?) everyone can memorize and understand. Sounds also as snap and snag. If you find a pun it would help it get accepted. jfc At 10:39 06/04/2012, Bináris wrote: 2012/4/5 Gregor Hagedorn <

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Martynas, what you are proposing below is not W3C recommended RDF but an extension of triples to quads. As far as I know, this extension is not compatible yet with existing standards such as SPARQL and OWL. Named graphs work with SPARQL, but are mostly used in another way than you suggest. Mos

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

On Fri, Apr 6, 2012 at 2:28 PM, Martynas Jusevicius wrote: > Hey again, > > "getting over" wasn't meant to be harsh. I was hoping though "wiki" in > "Wikidata" stands for a the broader concept of "free and open", and > not a particular syntax for encoding knowledge. > > I'm all for free and open k

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Hey again, "getting over" wasn't meant to be harsh. I was hoping though "wiki" in "Wikidata" stands for a the broader concept of "free and open", and not a particular syntax for encoding knowledge. I'm all for free and open knowledge, but I think sticking to the same mechanisms which helped boots

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Hey Denny, I gave it a shot: "116"^^ .

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

2012/4/5 Gregor Hagedorn > > I still feel uneasy about the hard-to-remember-neonym. It was strange to me and had to read after it. You may remember as bit-->byte-->snack, growing pieces of food. > I cannot prove > it, but believe the term snak will have to be learned by anyone who > interacts

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Hi Denny - Correct - URI opaqueness is required at the level of exchange but there's no such requirement internal to an application. During exchange, sure you can add a triple to assert that Density is the type of the object France#Density:2012_pop_estimate_Bilan_2010. Outside of exchange, type can

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Oh, that surprises me. Does this mean that the name of the subject is not opaque, as with URIs [1]? How do I know the relationship between France#Density:2012_pop_estimate_Bilan_2010 and Germany#Density:2009_pop_estimate_CIA_2010? Sorry, again my own ignorance about topic maps shows. I am much bet

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Denny said: you forgot to add something like France#Density:2012_pop_estimate_Bilan_2010 property Density . No I did not forget anything, given the Density 'namespace' in the subobject name. IOW your triple merely restates what is discernible from the subobject name. Maybe you should tell me what

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

John, thanks! I fully agree. And this is indeed pretty much what we have in our data model.* I think that we really need to get our draft mapping to RDF done, in order to show that we align pretty much with this suggestion. Cheers, Denny * well, we also add "density", but I think that is merely

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Denny said: But if you find a simpler, and more RDFish way to express the (below) statement, please feel free to enlighten me. I would be indeed very interested. "The population density of France, as of an 2012 estimate, is 116 per square kilometer, according to the "Bilan demographique 2010"." A

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Many thanks for the explanations Markus! I still feel uneasy about the hard-to-remember-neonym. I cannot prove it, but believe the term snak will have to be learned by anyone who interacts with the system through the API, any form of import mechanism, etc. This is far wider than the developers in

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Dear Martynas, if you try to model the following statement in RDF "The population density of France, as of an 2012 estimate, is 116 per square kilometer, according to the "Bilan demographique 2010"." you might notice that RDF requires a reification of the statement. The data model that you have

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

2012/4/5 Martynas Jusevicius > Too bad people cannot get over the wiki mentality. It has worked fine > for a while, but it's time to move on. > > Dear Martynas, with Wikidata, we do not want to "get over the wiki mentality", but actually embrace it. I thought that our name *Wiki*data was quite a

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

On 05/04/12 12:20, Martynas Jusevicius wrote: Hey all, it doesn't look like reuse of existing concepts and standards is a priority for this project. One cannot build a Semantic Web application by ignoring its main building block, which is the RDF data model. Right now it makes no sense to call W

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Gregor, James, I don't know if you are familiar with OWL and other semantic web standards, but if you are then the following explanation might be useful for you: The most precise general term for Snak in Semantic Web speak would be "axiom". The term "assertion" is more specific, since an asser

Re: [Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Hey all, it doesn't look like reuse of existing concepts and standards is a priority for this project. One cannot build a Semantic Web application by ignoring its main building block, which is the RDF data model. Right now it makes no sense to call Wikidata a "semantic" application. In my opinion

[Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Hi, When I glanced over the data model description and found the word 'Snaks' [1] as entity or unit of facts, it created some interpretive confusion. Semantic web already uses some abstract language to describe entity concepts, if possible don't introduce another one just to describe a new concept

[Wikidata-l] SNAK -> assertion?

Would the Word "assertion" be a possible replacement for the neonym "Snak"? ___ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l