Hoi, When you leave out qualifiers, you will find that Ronald Reagan was never president of the United States and only an actor. Yes, omitting the statements with qualifiers is wrong but as a consequence the total of the information is wrong as well. I do not see the point of this functionality. It is wrong any way I look at it. Without qualifiers information is wrong. Without statements information is wrong and without the items involved the information is incomplete and wrong. As I see it you cannot win. Including this type of RDF export produces something that I fail to see serves any purpose or it is the purpose that you can. Thanks, GerardM On 11 June 2014 12:03, Markus Krötzsch <markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

Hoi, There is a huge difference between being complete and leaving out essential information. When you consider Ronald Reagan [1], it is essential information that he was a president of the USA and a governor of California. When you only make him an actor and a politician, the information you are left with gives the impression he is more relevant as an actor. You brought attention to new functionality that is essentially broken. It does not give a fair impression of the Wikidata content. I have been arguing against overly referring to academic tools and standards. For me this announcement is yet another pointer that many of the tools are overrated and only have an "academic relevance. Thanks, GerardM [1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?&q=9960 On 13 June 2014 11:41, Markus Krötzsch <markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

Hoi, Joe, plain vanilla Wikidata is not informative. It provides statements in no particular order and it does it in a way where you have to scroll-a-lot to see it all. It takes tools like Reasonator to organise the data so that it becomes informative. With a little code it is possible to provide some narrative about people. This works for English in the Reasonator, a good example is JS Bach [1]. However this script works for any human, add info and you may get a more informative text. For most humans most Wikipedias do not have an article. As they are considered notable and as there is information available, the available information can be served. This is how we "share in the sum of available knowledge". When you compare a Wikidata item with a Wikipedia article, you will find that for most items there is no article and consequently Wikidata has the edge in its ability to inform. Even for the English Wikipedia there are many people who do not have an article. I cannot wait for all those students to get cracking and deliver something that is useful. Markus, you indicate that you do not understand my arguments. You try to refute my argument by referring to WDQ or Wikidata Query. Indeed, initially it did not support qualifiers however the intention for the tool was to do this eventually and, it always included all statements in a result. By comparison the simple RDF export does not export statements with qualifiers and there is no intention to change this in the future. When you indicate that you disagree, I assume that you understand my arguments.However you indicate you do not understand them so it is appropriate to try and clarify my arguments. [1] http://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q1339&lang=en On 13 June 2014 12:56, Joe Filceolaire <filceolaire(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Hoi, I do not mind RDF. I do not mind OWL. What I do mind is that people assume that everyone assumes that others know what it means and appreciate it as being "good". When people use an RDF tool that produces obviously incomplete and therefore incorrect information, it is beyond me that an implementation of that tool is developed. It is plain stupid. When you argue that it is fine for people to be stupid, I totally agree. They may be but let them be stupid with something other than Wikidata. Because everything they do, is GIGO: garbage in garbage out. They will make the most weird and wonderful pronouncements and it will all be wrong because it is based on incomplete and incorrect data. It will not always be obvious who is stupid. The worst part is that they do not need to be stupid; it is easily prevented; just do not provide them with the tools that will only serve us wrong. That is the kind of RDF files that I object to. Thanks, GerardM On 13 June 2014 19:05, Markus Krötzsch <markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote:

I think it is a reasonable ambition that the 'preferred' statement should always provide accurate information even when the qualifiers are missing. For example, if we have population figures for various years and 'applies to part' figures for males, females, under 20's etc. then the most recent 'total' population figure should be the preferred value. Even without qualifiers this is a useful answer. Similarly for Ronald Reagan the fact that he held the office of President is useful even if you don't give the start/end dates or the fact that it was 'of' the USA. Wherever a statement would be misleading if you leave out the qualifiers then I think that is an indication that we need to have another look at the syntax and see how it can be fixed to comply with this principal. We should do an RFC on Wikidata to make this policy and then amend the help pages to highlight this. If this is accepted as wikidata policy then I suggest that a simple data dump should include all statements, even if qualifiers are not included, but that, where a statement has multiple values, some of which are 'preferred' then only the preferred values should be included. Yes? Joe On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 10:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com > Hoi, > When you leave out qualifiers, you will find that Ronald Reagan was never > president of the United States and only an actor. Yes, omitting the > statements with qualifiers is wrong but as a consequence the total of the > information is wrong as well. > > I do not see the point of this functionality. It is wrong any way I look > at it. Without qualifiers information is wrong. Without statements > information is wrong and without the items involved the information is > incomplete and wrong. > > As I see it you cannot win. Including this type of RDF export produces > something that I fail to see serves any purpose or it is the purpose that > you can. > > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 11 June 2014 12:03, Markus Krötzsch &lt;markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt; > >> On 10/06/14 22:50, Gerard Meijssen wrote: >> >>> Hoi, >>> It is stated that there are no qualifiers included. In one of the >>> articles you write that it is to be understood that the vailidity of the >>> information is dependent on the existing qualifiers. >>> >>> What is the value of these RDF exports with the qualifiers missing? >>> >> >> Our normal exports include all the qualifiers and references. >> >> Our simplified exports include only those statements that don't have >> qualifiers. You are right that it would lead to wrong information to leave >> away quantifiers. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Markus >> >> Thanks, >>> GerardM >>> >>> >>> On 10 June 2014 10:43, Markus Kroetzsch &lt;markus.kroetzsch(a)tu-dresden.de >>> <mailto:markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de>>>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> We are now offering regular RDF dumps for the content of Wikidata: >>> >>> http://tools.wmflabs.org/__wikidata-exports/rdf/ >>> >>> <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/> >>> >>> RDF is the Resource Description Framework of the W3C that can be >>> used to exchange data on the Web. The Wikidata RDF exports consist >>> of several files that contain different parts and views of the data, >>> and which can be used independently. Details on the available >>> exports and the RDF encoding used in each can be found in the paper >>> "Introducing Wikidata to the Linked Data Web" [1]. >>> >>> The available RDF exports can be found in the directory >>> http://tools.wmflabs.org/__wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/ >>> <http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-exports/rdf/exports/>. New >>> >>> exports are generated regularly from current data dumps of Wikidata >>> and will appear in this directory shortly afterwards. >>> >>> All dump files have been generated using Wikidata Toolkit [2]. There >>> are some important differences in comparison to earlier dumps: >>> >>> * Data is split into several dump files for convenience. Pick >>> whatever you are most interested in. >>> * All dumps are generated using the OpenRDF library for Java (better >>> quality than ad hoc serialization; much slower too ;-) >>> * All dumps are in N3 format, the simplest RDF serialization format >>> that there is >>> * In addition to the faithful dumps, some simplified dumps are also >>> available (one statement = one triple; no qualifiers and references). >>> * Links to external data sets are added to the data for Wikidata >>> properties that point to datasets with RDF exports. That's the >>> "Linked" in "Linked Open Data". >>> >>> Suggestions for improvements and contributions on github are welcome. >>> >>> Cheers, >>> >>> Markus >>> >>> [1] >>> http://korrekt.org/page/__Introducing_Wikidata_to_the___ >>> Linked_Data_Web >>> <http://korrekt.org/page/Introducing_Wikidata_to_the_Linked_Data_Web >>> > >>> [2] https://www.mediawiki.org/__wiki/Wikidata_Toolkit >>> >>> <https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikidata_Toolkit> >>> >>> -- >>> Markus Kroetzsch >>> Faculty of Computer Science >>> Technische Universität Dresden >>> +49 351 463 38486 <tel:%2B49%20351%20463%2038486> >>> http://korrekt.org/ >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> 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 > >

Am 13.06.2014 11:08, schrieb Gerard Meijssen: Did I understand you right, Markus, that you leave out all statements which have at least one qualifier? Wouldn't it make more sense to leave out the qualifiers only but add the statements without qualifiers anyway? Because this would solve eg. Gerard's problem with Ronald Reagan. Best regards, Bene

Markus, Thanks for the thorough reply! you can use SPARQL 1.1 transitive closure in queries (using "*" after I had a feeling I was missing something basic. (I'm also new to SPARQL.) Using "*" after the property got me what I was looking for by default in Protege. That is, SELECT ?subject WHERE { ?subject rdfs:subClassOf* <http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q82586> . } -- with an asterisk after rdfs:subClassOf -- got me the transitive closure and returned all subclasses of Q82586 / "lepton". Should we maybe create an English label file for the classes? Descriptions A file with English labels and descriptions for classes would be great and, I think, address this use case. Per your note, I suppose one would simply concatenate that English terms file and wikidata-taxonomy.nt into a new .nt file, then import that into Protege to explore the class hierarchy. (Having every line in the ontology be self-contained in N3 is very convenient!) Regarding the pruned subset, I think the command-line approach in your examples is enough for me to get started making my own. I won't have time to experiment with these things for a few weeks, but I will return to this then and let you know any interesting findings. Cheers, Eric On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Markus Krötzsch < markus(a)semantic-mediawiki.org&gt; wrote: