The statement to reference relation problem also relates to the topic of
Metadata Reification which from what I can gather, not really addressed in
the current WDQS RDF approach.
In Blazegraph, this could be supported by Quads or RDR (Reification Done
Right).
See
One possible approach using triples for the use case could be to assign a
blank node to a reference placeholder and introduce the valid range class
for prov:wasDerivedFrom (prov:entity) with the canonical reference UUID
like this:
wds:Q3-24bf3704-4c5d-083a-9b59-1881f82b6b37 prov:wasDerivedFrom _:refhash .
_:refhash
a prov:entity, wikibase:Reference, wdref:referenceUUID ;
pr:P7 "Some data" ;
pr:P8 "1976-01-12T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime ;
prv:P8 wdv:b74072c03a5ced412a336ff213d69ef1 .
Introducing a owl:minCardinality on prov:wasDerivedFrom would mean that if
there were no refhash for a statement than a null object (similar to wdno)
would identify "unreferenced statements" like this:
wds:Q3-24bf3704-4c5d-083a-9b59-1881f82b6b37 prov:wasDerivedFrom
wikibase:nullRef .
There are a lot ways to deal with this issue, I guess. But, it seems to me
that having a simple programmatic method to validate statement integrity
(as supported or unsupported claims) is very important to substantiating
the utility of Wikidata for the academic community.
On 28 November 2015 at 11:20, Christopher Johnson <
christopher.johnson(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:
Thank you for the explanation. The content negotion
for an Item IRI is
clear. Any request for
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q... requires an
Accept application/rdf+xml header in order to get the RDF. The default
response is JSON and Accept text/html returns a 200 response delivering the
UI page.
For statement resolution in the Item RDF, is not this a fragment? So in
the Item context, the IRI for a statement resource would be
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q16521#Statement_UUID. Otherwise, the
statement IRI
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/statement/Statement_UUID
could just return the statement as a separate entity.
On the topic of references, a use case is to measure data quality by
counting the number of "unreferenced statements". At
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T117234#1834728, I propose the
possibility of using blank reference nodes to identify these "bad"
statements. Having an object to count greatly expedites the query process
because of the estimated cardinality feature of Blazegraph. The only
alternative to this is to count distinct statements with the
prov:wasDerivedFrom predicate, and this is extremely slow (in fact, it may
not be possible without a huge amount of memory).
I do not know what would be involved in implementing blank reference nodes
and what performance consequences may also occur. It seems to me that the
pairing of statements and references is a core feature of the data model,
and it is odd that there can exist statements that have no associated
reference node in the RDF.
Cheers,
Christopher
On 27 November 2015 at 13:00, <wikidata-tech-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> Send Wikidata-tech mailing list submissions to
> wikidata-tech(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-tech
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> wikidata-tech-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> wikidata-tech-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Wikidata-tech digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. RDF Item, Statement and Reference IRI Resolution?
> (Christopher Johnson)
> 2. Re: RDF Item, Statement and Reference IRI Resolution?
> (Markus Krötzsch)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:21:10 +0100
> From: Christopher Johnson <christopher.johnson(a)wikimedia.de>
> To: wikidata-tech(a)lists.wikimedia.org, wikimedia-de-tech
> <wikimedia-de-tech(a)wikimedia.de>
> Subject: [Wikidata-tech] RDF Item, Statement and Reference IRI
> Resolution?
> Message-ID:
> <CACzuuKvGK1dM1+dn4ypocjhO=
> psuk4LLtWngZp1yFVP6wmVqFA(a)mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Hi,
>
> After looking at the RDF format closely, I am asking if the item,
> statement
> and reference IRIs could/should be directly resolvable to XML/JSON
> formatted resources.
>
> It seems that currently
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/.... redirects to
> the UI at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/ which is not what a machine
> reader
> would expect.
> Without a simple method to resolve the IRIs (perhaps a RESTful API?),
> these
> RDF data objects are opaque for parsers.
>
> Of course, with wbgetclaims, it is possible to get the statement like
> this:
>
>
https://www.wikidata.org/w/api.php?action=wbgetclaims&format=xml&cl…
>
> but the API expected GUID format does not match the RDF UUID
> representation
> (there is a $ or "%24" after the item instead of a -) and it returns both
> the statement and the references.
>
> Since the reference is its own node in the RDF, it can be queried
> independently. For example, to ask "return all of the statements where
> reference R is bound." But then, the return value is a list of statement
> IDs and a subquery or separate query is then required to return the
> associated statement node.
>
> I am also wondering why item, statement and reference "UUIDs" are not in
> canonical format in the RDF. This is a question of compliance with IETF
> guidelines, which may or may not be relevant.
>
> Item: Q20913766
> Statement: Q20913766-CD281698-E1D0-43A1-BEEA-E2A60E5A88F1
> Reference: 39f3ce979f9d84a0ebf09abe1702bf22326695e9
>
> See:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikibase/Indexing/RDF_Dump_Format
> See:
http://www.iana.org/assignments/urn-namespaces/urn-namespaces.xhtml
> and
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4122 for information on urn:uuid
> guidelines.
>
> Thanks for your feedback,
> Christopher
>