Hey all,
Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it
reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL
query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
What I ended up with was:
SELECT ?winner
WHERE {
?winner wdt:P166 ?prize .
?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 .
}
More specifically, looking into the data I found:
Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637)
part of (P361)
Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922)
subclass of (P279)
Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170)
instance of (P31)
Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
part of (P361)
Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585)
instance of (P31)
Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
part of (P361)
Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104)
subclass of (P31)
Nobel Prize (Q7191) ;
part of (P361)
Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties
are used in five different combinations to state that they "are", in
fact, Nobel prizes. :)
Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of P31
vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and similar
such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general problem of the
lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof)
are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different
viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?
(Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been with
the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what is
being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to foster
consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)
Best,
Aidan
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
