daniel added a comment.
Thanks for your input, Markus!
> things that are of rdf:type Item are things that are described by on item on
> Wikidata
So, what type would the description have? schema:Dataset seems a bit broad...
> I think confusion is very unlikely here since we do not export any RDF data
> about item documents.
We do expose some limited information about item documents:
data:Q23
schema:version 197346379 ;
schema:dateModified "2015-02-17T14:27:33Z"^^xsd:dateTime ;
a schema:Dataset ;
schema:about entity:Q23 ;
cc:license <http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/> .
I think it would be perfectly sensible to say that wikibase:Item is a subclass
of schema:Dataset, and have "a wikibase:Item" on data:Q23 instead of
entity:Q23. The latter seems pointless to me.
That said, I agree that we should not wantonly change our mapping. I do think
however that we should re-consider this bit of the RDF mapping. It seems
pointless at best, and potentially harmful in the case of items. In the case of
properties, it makes more sense
> In RDF, we certainly distinguish between a thing and its description
Yes, of course you can. It just seems that the RDFS spec is not help with that
distinction, nor is it careful to point it out. The statement that
rdfs:Resource is the baseclass for //everything//, and then not providing a
base class for //descriptions//, is an invitation to mix the identity of the
description with the identity of the thing.
TASK DETAIL
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T89949
REPLY HANDLER ACTIONS
Reply to comment or attach files, or !close, !claim, !unsubscribe or !assign
<username>.
EMAIL PREFERENCES
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/
To: daniel
Cc: Smalyshev, mkroetzsch, Aklapper, daniel, Wikidata-bugs, Jdouglas, aude
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-bugs mailing list
Wikidata-bugs@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-bugs
