Please note that this is a breaking change for bots!
It is decided that the module wbsetitem will change from the present
"short form" in the json structure to a "long form". Exactly how the
long form will be is still a bit open, but it will be closer to the
json output format. The changes also makes it possible to use a
key-less format as the language and site id will be available inside
the long form.
The following short form will be WRONG in the future
This long form will be RIGHT in the future
And also this will be RIGHT
New modules may use a long form if they support json input, but that
for the future.
In some cases it seems necessary to add flags for what to do with
individual fields, but perhaps we can avoid it. (Typically for
adding/removing aliases, but it could also be necessary for other
There are also a new "clear" URL argument that will clear the content
of an item and make it possible to rebuild it from scratch. Default
behavior is NOT to clear the content, but to incrementally build on
the existing item.
Also note that use of [no]usekeys in the URL is not supported anymore.
Hello John McClure
thanks a lot for the explanations, unfortunately I have some open questions left.
"Why is the topic map standard at
http://www.topicmaps.org/standards/  an unofficial topic map
standard?" Links can be found to working technical committee reports,
which are generally re-titled as "standards" once voted and accepted by
ISO. These TC reports vary little from what is published by the ISO
community as a "standard".
So this is a standard by the ISO and thus I think it is at least SOME standard and
so one probably shouldnt call it non-standard even if one is not happy with this standard, no?
"ISO/IEC 19788-1:2011 is
information-technology-neutral" means that information elements defined
by the standard for learning resources can be represented using a
concrete implementation syntax such as provided by the RDF or by Topic
Maps or by SMW syntax or by JSON or by a variety of others. For
instance, a data element defined by 19788 might be "Learning Resource"
which has an attribute called "Minimum Education Level".
OK I think I understand now. You mean ISO/IEC 19788-1:2011 is probably a version of ISO/IEC 19788
since 2011 is probably the year 2011 and not a different (newer) kind of specification.
Information-technology-neutral means that it is a specification that is neutral with regard to
the specific infromation-technological implementation, but
not neutral with regard to the aspect of information-technology per se.
Where do you have this information from? You had just written that
"To my knowledge ISO has not published, nor is intending to publish, instances of topic maps representing the content of their numerous publications, using either their (ISO's) standard for Topic Maps (ISO/IEC 13250), or any other ISO or non-ISO standard. Forgive me if I ever gave that impression."
but using a concrete syntax which "can be represented using a
concrete implementation syntax such as provided by the RDF or by Topic
Maps or by SMW syntax or by JSON or by a variety of others."
is ALMOST as good as directly publishing a machine readable standard! and as it seems by
looking at this secret paper:
N2448 - `summary of voting on ISOIEC NP 18343, Learning environment profile for automated contents. at http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/open/jtc1sc36
it seems that they may have now plans to concretely publish a standard.
I was not talking about the rdf ontology like in the XML serialization <rdf:RDF
but about the rdf graph data model
is already a serialized format
which you would probably (I am not overly familiar with XML) phrase in the RDF graph model as
(Lithium(dc:title) ----minEducLevel(iso:minEducLevel)--> 12th grade(literal))-----Learningresource(iso:LearningResource) ---> LR12345 (rdf:about, literal)
(Lithium(dc:title) ----minEducLevel(iso:minEducLevel)--> 12th grade(literal))-----rdfXMLsource(rdf:xmlns)---->(iso="http://iso.org/19788/")
(Lithium(dc:title) ----minEducLevel(iso:minEducLevel)--> 12th grade(literal))-----rdfXMLsource(rdf:xmlns)---->(dc=dublincore)
where I put the "URI" (which is here given by the link to the respective ontologies) or the term literal in brackets.
Do you agree? I may then look at your topic map formulation.
Friedrich Röhrs wrote:
"as far as I have understood Nadja Kutz and John McClure want the wikidata dev team to somehow commit to using ISO topic maps for the classification of the content of wikidata. "
No that is not what I want the wikidata to do. please read all my postings to this thread : Re: Wikidata, ISO and chembox,
I know with this gmane system it is really hard to follow a discussion, but the wikidata team seems to love this.
I was talking about the ISO contents.
I also wrote a reply to Luca Martinelli, but apparently this got lost in transmission/moderation.???
(i am not an official wikidata list member what ever the criteria for being such a member are)
I just try to warn wikidata people that is
I GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT THE ISO WANTS TO PUBLISH THEIR OWN MACHINE READABLE STANDARD AND
THAT CONFLICTS WITH WIKIDATA MAY ARISE IN THAT PROCESS WHICH COULD EG RESULT IN LAW SUITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(IN WHICH THE ISO WILL CLEARLY HAVE A FAR BETTER POSITION OR IN OTHER WORDS WIKIDATA WOULD BE SQUASHED
IN SUCH A PROCESS)
SO WIKIDATA SHOULD TRY TO CLEAR THE CONFLICTS OR AT LEAST GET AN OVERVIEW ABOUT WHAT COULD HAPPEN
AND EVENTUALLY LOOK FOR STRONG SUPPORTERS.
I DONT KNOW HOWEVER HOW MUCH THIS IS POSSIBLE AT ALL.
Mr. Denny Vandrecic, many thanks for your detailed answer. Let me try to explain the open questions
"I am not a lawyer, but I want to point out that there is a distinction
between Copyright and other IP protection. Whereas a text about the
classification of hammers may (and usually is) copyrighted, the mere
fact that a hammer is a tool can not be copyrighted."
-One would hope so, but there are so many strange things which are under IP protection that I wouldnt count on that and
let a lawyer have a look on that.
"Also, we need to make a distinction between the IP for the data model of Wikidata and the content of Wikidata."
-John McClure was talking about the underlying basic data model and I just replied to his ISO topic map comment.
I havent looked much at your Wikidata data model sofar. If you export RDF and ISO topic maps then this discussion is
for moment rather not important.
-Regarding the discussion about the ISO - I was talking about their content classification scheme. That is if the
wikidata classification (like a hammer is a tool etc.) is built up (or in other words the wikidata ontology) then one
may accidentally or on purpose use the ISO classifications.
And it would at least make sense to refer to them since a lot of industrial applications use ISO standards.
"Just as the MediaWiki developers do not decide on the content of Wikipedia, the Wikidata developers do not decide on the
content of Wikidata. I hope the distinction makes sense."
- I understand this however at some point it seems the wikidata project has to think about these issues moreover eventually your data model could be influenced by ISO choices, but as said I havent looked into that yet
John McClure wrote:
"To my knowledge ISO has not published, nor is intending to publish, instances of topic maps representing the content of their numerous publications, using either their (ISO's) standard for Topic Maps (ISO/IEC 13250), or any other ISO or non-ISO standard. Forgive me if I ever gave that impression.
You provided a nice link to unofficial topic map standards, thank you. Here's others: http://www.garshol.priv.no/download/tmlinks.html."
thanks for the link. Why is the topic map standard at http://www.topicmaps.org/standards/ an unofficial topic map standard?
They talk about that it is ISO 13250 standard.
You had drawn my attention to the ISO, thanks for that however the impression that they might have some standards is from their
where they write amongst others:
"The primary purpose of ISO/IEC 19788 is to specify metadata elements and their attributes for the description of learning resources. This includes the rules governing the identification of data elements and the specification of their attributes."
since this thing costs 162 CHF i can't check what those guys are really doing there, however it would be strange to define
metadata which is not for automated processing. In particular they write a little later:
"ISO/IEC 19788-1:2011 is information-technology-neutral and defines a set of common approaches, i.e. methodologies and constructs, which apply to the development of the subsequent parts of ISO/IEC 19788."
would they write this if ISO/IEC 19788 was information-technology-neutral as well?
moreover there exists also a
N2448 Summary of voting on ISOIEC NP 18343, Learning environment profile for automated contents
which is password protected at the webpage: http://isotc.iso.org/livelink/livelink/open/jtc1sc36
but where the word AUTOMATED appears explicitly.
but of course it would be nicer to have someone who knows explicitly what exactly they are having in mind there at ISO.
> On 04.09.2012 23:21, Andreas Scheinert wrote:
> >* Hello everyone,*>* I just saw the wikidata talk from wikimania 2012 and I have to say wikidata is*>* shaping up nicely. *
> Glad you like the talk! Can you share the link? I'm still waiting for the
> recordings of the presentations by Denny, Jeroen and me to go online, I can't
> find them...
> Or do you mean the panel? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXQ3GC7O2mc#t=22m44s
> -- daniel
> PS: more presentations about Wikidata:
> * Denny at the Wikipedia Hackathon: http://vimeo.com/43478419
> * me at Campus Party Europe: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mpG4pkuUr9I
> Daniel Kinzler, Softwarearchitekt
> Yes I was referring to the panel! Thanks for the other pointers.
regards Andreas S.
Luca Martinelli wrote:
If I got it right, someone expressed his/her doubts about using ISO
standards in classifying data on Wikidata because of [this point may
be challenged, but this is what I understood] potential ISO copyright
Now, the points are:
a) Is my guess correct? If no, what is the point this discussion is about?
b) Is there anyone who could answer this doubt, whatever it is?
your guess is correct. I was having doubts. As I pointed out here earlier in this thread it seems
that the ISO plans to publish some (automated) metadata.
If they are going to recast their database into a giant ontology then they probably
want to sell this, since selling the information of standards is part of their business model.
If wikidata would built up a similar ontology this business model wouldnt work
anymore and so my fear is that there could already be an Armada of lawyers
waiting to jump in.
Heya folks :)
As some of you might already have heard we have a new Wikidata team
member since yesterday. Anja Jentzsch will be working with us from now
on. She'll be focusing on quality assurance and the deployment of
You can read an introduction in the Wikimedia Deutschland blog at
Please join me in welcoming Anja. This is awesome news for Wikidata.
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> John McClure wrote:
> "Nadja conflated our asking about ISO Topic Maps as a base design standard with incorporating ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED into the wikidata database"
> OK what I have sofar understood is that the ISO has not (yet) published much semantically structured content, in particular John how do you know that
> their publications are topic maps? Because there exists a ISO Topic Map metamodel? http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikitopics
> (here another link: http://www.topicmaps.org/standards/)
> I guess there could also be a ISO RDF metamodel....although this would probably rather be a ISO W3C RDF metamodel :O
> that is RDF could be an ISO standard. That is I currently dont see anything which speaks against this or is is it already?
> Moreover I am not in favor of topic maps, as explained earlier and as I had understood Wikidata wanted to use RDF and JSON but may
> wikidata people have changed their mind in the meantime and in the end one can probably work with these topic maps somewhat similar as one can work with RDF that is I think it may just be quite a bit more messy moreover my impression is that there is more RDF linked data in the cloud
> (see e.g. http://linkeddata.org/) than topic maps (http://www.topicmaps.org/) but I may be wrong.
> moreover I didn't say to use ALL ISO STANDARDS EVER PUBLISHED but suggested to use these eventually as a guideline:
> this doesnt exclude that one could use in the end all ISO standards ever published, but one could do so incrementally.
> so regarding Denny Vrandecics remark:
> "Right now I am slightly confused about what your question is. Can you
> rephrase it and ask again? (The reference to "previous email" and
> links to the archive leave me merely more confused)."
> I restate the questions of my posting: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.org.wikimedia.wikidata/576
> with a slightly different wording
> Is it planned by the Wikidata team that someone phones these people in Geneva and asks wether wikidata could at least base its ontology (here I mean in particular the overall classification scheme, like a hammer is a tool a.s.o) on
> the ISO Standard
> (eventually by purchasing this right)
> phone number: http://www.iso.org/iso/copyright.htm
> (in that way one would eventually not use their explicit texts and formats but could use at least their
> structural outline) ?
> side remark: In particular I still don't see that Wikidata may not run into legal issues with the ISO.
> or simply: If the ISO has an IP protection on the classification "a hammer is a tool"
> and if wikidata uses the same classification (because it is more or less the only one which makes sense)
> then wikidata may be doomed, bailiffs will come and carry your nice new chairs out of your office in schoeneberg
> and so on....
> (correction: the bailiffs would bring someone who carries...)
> next questions:
> Is there some rich sponsor who could buy their RDF classification (or topic map classification..?) and
> make it openly accessible? Whats the ISO opinion on that did someone check?
> Mr. Denny Vrandecic If you still don't understand these questions then please tell me exactly what you do not understand like
> which sentence, which word etc.