> We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", subclass > of > "city" and "UK administrative division", may we? > Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested to link to "city status in the UK" -- but there is no item "town status in the UK" so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest. Markus > L. > > Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" &lt;markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org > <mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>> ha scritto: > > > On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: > > Well they can ask..... > > As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the > limits of > each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The > population > of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only 7,375! > Should we > change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? > > > Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legal > statuses > of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers > to. > There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but it > is > not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, > this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" > have > over 100k inhabitants. > > The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human > settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness > of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good > class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded > city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that > something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing > the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and > will probably never be done uniformly across the data. > > Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with > more > than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that > (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). > > Markus > > [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City > > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> > > > > Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' has > problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or > the > Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude > these the > query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an > item > is 'in > the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether > that was > true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people. > > This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to > point out > that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are > going to > have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible to > drill > down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the data > is > there, > open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of a > letting > loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it. > > If we build it they will come! > > At least that is my understanding. > > Joe > > > On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw > &lt;jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> > <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com > > <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com>__>> wrote: > > Hey Yury, > > We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for > Wikidata. > > People will be able to define queries on dedicated query > pages that > contain a query entity. These query entities will > represent > things > such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". > People will > then be able to access the result for those queries via > the > web API > and be able to embed different views on them into wiki > pages. These > views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might > indeed be > able to share code between the two projects for that. > > This functionality is still some way off though. We still > need to do > a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query > builder. To > already get something out to the users, we plan to enable > more > simple queries via the web API in the near future. > > Cheers > > -- > Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com > Software craftsmanship advocate > Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany > ~=[,,_,,]:3 > > _________________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.__wikimedia.org > <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> > > > > > _________________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> > > > > _________________________________________________ > > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists. > wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Important to recognise is that there can be as many layers as are needed.. ie a roller coaster can be in a park, a park can be in a settlement, a settlement in a municipality, a municipality in a county, a county in a province, a province in a state and finally a state in a country (that is on a continent)... This is how it effectively is already in Wikidata for many "locations" Thanks, Gerard On 11 June 2014 09:48, Thomas Douillard &lt;thomas.douillard(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Hi, I basically proposed a two layers model in extended discussions : > Administrative units | Administrative unit type | Administrative unit > classes by country > City Of London | City of the UK | Type of > administrative unit of the UK > Lorraine | French Region | Type of > administrative unit of France > > Where going one step left in the table reads ''instance of''. This > seem close to your ''helper item'' model. > > > > > 2014-06-10 13:44 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch < > markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt;gt;: > > On 10/06/14 11:11, Luca Martinelli wrote: >> >>> We may possibly use an ad hoc item "City of United Kingdom", >>> subclass of >>> "city" and "UK administrative division", may we? >>> >> >> Sure, that's possible. Maybe this is even necessary. I had suggested >> to link to "city status in the UK" -- but there is no item "town status in >> the UK" so one would need to have helper items there as well. If we need >> new items in either case, the class-based modelling seems nicer since it >> fits into the existing class hierarchy as you suggest. >> >> Markus >> >> >> >> >>> L. >>> >>> Il 10/giu/2014 10:21 "Markus Krötzsch" < >>> markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org >>> <mailto:markus@semantic-mediawiki.org>> ha scritto: >>> >>> >>> On 07/06/14 00:40, Joe Filceolaire wrote: >>> >>> Well they can ask..... >>> >>> As there is no real definition of what is a city and what the >>> limits of >>> each city are I'm not sure they will get a useful answer. The >>> population >>> of the "City of London" (Q23311), for instance, is only >>> 7,375! >>> Should we >>> change it from 'instance of:city' to 'instance of:village'? >>> >>> >>> Side remark: in the UK, "city" and "town" are special legal >>> statuses >>> of settlements. This terminology is what "City of London" refers >>> to. >>> There is a clear and crisp definition for what this means, but >>> it is >>> not what we mean by our class "city" in Wikidata. In particular, >>> this has no direct relationship to size: the largest UK "towns" >>> have >>> over 100k inhabitants. >>> >>> The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent >>> human >>> settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the >>> vagueness >>> of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good >>> class to use in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded >>> city status in the UK (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that >>> something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But >>> drawing >>> the line between "village", "city" and "town" is quite tricky, >>> and >>> will probably never be done uniformly across the data. >>> >>> Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with >>> more >>> than 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that >>> (which I think is basically what you also are saying below :-). >>> >>> Markus >>> >>> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/__City >>> >>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City> >>> >>> >>> >>> Even a basic query like 'people born in the Czech republic' >>> has >>> problems. Should it include people born in Czechoslovakia or >>> the >>> Austro-Hungarian provinces of Bohemia and Moravia? To exclude >>> these the >>> query needs to check not just if the 'place of birth' of an >>> item >>> is 'in >>> the administrative entity:Czech Republic' today but whether >>> that was >>> true on the 'date of birth' of each of those people. >>> >>> This isn't to say that such queries are not useful. Just to >>> point out >>> that real world data is tricky. The cool thing is that we are >>> going to >>> have the data in Wikidata to make it theoretically feasible >>> to drill >>> down and get answers to these tricky questions. Once the >>> data is >>> there, >>> open licensed for anyone to use, then it is just a matter of >>> a >>> letting >>> loose a thousand PhDs to devise clever ways to query it. >>> >>> If we build it they will come! >>> >>> At least that is my understanding. >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 6, 2014 at 9:21 PM, Jeroen De Dauw >>> &lt;jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com> >>> <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com >>> >>> <mailto:jeroendedauw@gmail.com>__>> wrote: >>> >>> Hey Yury, >>> >>> We are indeed planning to use the Ask query language for >>> Wikidata. >>> >>> People will be able to define queries on dedicated query >>> pages that >>> contain a query entity. These query entities will >>> represent >>> things >>> such as "The cities with highest population in Europe". >>> People will >>> then be able to access the result for those queries via >>> the >>> web API >>> and be able to embed different views on them into wiki >>> pages. These >>> views will be much like SMW result formats, and we might >>> indeed be >>> able to share code between the two projects for that. >>> >>> This functionality is still some way off though. We >>> still >>> need to do >>> a lot of work, such as creating a nice visual query >>> builder. To >>> already get something out to the users, we plan to >>> enable more >>> simple queries via the web API in the near future. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> -- >>> Jeroen De Dauw - http://www.bn2vs.com >>> Software craftsmanship advocate >>> Evil software architect at Wikimedia Germany >>> ~=[,,_,,]:3 >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> >>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.__wikimedia.org >>> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org>> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> >>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> >>> >>> >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> >>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists. >>> wikimedia.org> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/__mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >>> >>> <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l> >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class

in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in the

(Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between

"city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done

across the data. Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more

100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I

is basically what you also are saying below :-).

Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. The question is down to what to include. A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed). When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor? Joe On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray < andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; wrote: > On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch &lt;markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt; > wrote: > > > The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human > > settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of > > "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class > to use > > in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in > the UK > > (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human > > settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between > "village", > > "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done > uniformly > > across the data. > > > > Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more > than > > 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which > I think > > is basically what you also are saying below :-). > > OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling > something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that > everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious > bit is :-) > > I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know > this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have > disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search > based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of > 'human settlement'" instead..." > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Hoi, I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been sniffing. It will just alienate them. Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. Thanks, GerardM On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > I think we should drop "part of" and start using a better mereological > system > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png > > Cheers, > Micru > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire < > filceolaire(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a >> 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. >> The question is down to what to include. >> >> A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up >> area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative >> region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central >> business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater >> London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the >> Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the >> "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built >> up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every >> county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance >> of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and >> it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed). >> >> When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? >> Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? >> Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor? >> >> Joe >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray < >> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk&gt; wrote: >> >>> On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch < >>> markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt; wrote: >>> >>> > The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human >>> > settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness >>> of >>> > "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good >>> class to use >>> > in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in >>> the UK >>> > (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human >>> > settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between >>> "village", >>> > "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done >>> uniformly >>> > across the data. >>> > >>> > Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with >>> more than >>> > 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that >>> (which I think >>> > is basically what you also are saying below :-). >>> >>> OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling >>> something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that >>> everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious >>> bit is :-) >>> >>> I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know >>> this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have >>> disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search >>> based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of >>> 'human settlement'" instead..." >>> >>> -- >>> - Andrew Gray >>> andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikidata-l mailing list >>> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> >> > > > -- > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l