Thanks, Peter,
I agree with You, I was wrong before. But also the stated as (P1932) has certain info value
and both the stated as (P1932) and the determination method (P459) could be additive ones.
Michal
________________________________
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2018 08:30:49 -0700
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider(a)gmail.com>
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project
<wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, "Pavlovic, Michal"
<Michal.Pavlovic(a)newayselectronics.com>
Subject: Re: [Wikidata] frequency of qualifier predicates
Message-ID: <5d35b0ac-006f-a42a-c3bf-d4d050a646f8(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Here is my breakdown of the top-10-by-usage qualifier predicates:
>From https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.wm… as of 13 July 2018
Label (ID) statements qualifiers
temporal qualifier point in time (P585) 336561 3147744
temporal qualifier start time (P580) 73298 1912311
temporal qualifier end time (P582) 54482 1236121
temporal qualifier valid in period (P1264) 67 656749
spatial qualifier chromosome (P1057) 128429 1397383
certainty qualifier? determination method (P459) 30 3407191
no information stated as (P1932) 3 667358
additive number of points scored (P1351) 1079 644273
additive number of matches played (P1350) 1507 628272
additive taxon author (P405) 0 463363
On 07/18/2018 07:39 AM, Pavlovic, Michal wrote:
> Hi Peter,
>
> of the top ten qualifier properties by usage I find maybe just the stated as
> (P1932) as contextual one.
>
> Please, can You send examples of them of contextual and additive?
>
>
>
> regards
>
> Michal Pavlovic
>
> BaaN/Infor-Administrator
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 08:32:43 -0700
> From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider(a)gmail.com>
> To: wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Wikidata] frequency of qualifier predicates
> Message-ID: <6ba70a52-1f8f-eb3a-8425-7760c56d34e2(a)gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> That does the trick, thanks.
>
> I was trying to see how many uses of Wikidata qualifiers are contextual (i.e.,
> give information about in which context the statement is valid) and which were
> additive (i.e., do not limit where the statement is valid).
>
> Of the top ten qualifier properties by usage, five are contextual, three are
> additive, and one does not carry world information. The last can be
> considered to be contextual, but also might be considered to not carry world
> information.
>
> peter
>
>
> On 07/14/2018 01:19 AM, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
>> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 1:42 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
>> <pfpschneider(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm trying to get a good estimate of how often which qualifier predicate is used.
>>>
>>>
>>> The obvious query times out, as expected, so I was trying to find a list of
>>> predicates that are used as qualifiers so that I can craft a query for each of
>>> them. There is
>>> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wiki…
>>> but that can't be trusted as it doesn't include start time (P580) or end time
>>> (P582) which I expect to be the most common qualifier predicates.
>>>
>>>
>>> So, I'm stumped. Any suggestions?
>> There is https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.wm…
> which
>> might help you.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lydia
________________________________
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by returning this e-mail.
Neways Electronics NV is not responsible for the improper or incomplete transmission of any e-mail, or for any delay in its receipt.
________________________________
Hi Peter,
of the top ten qualifier properties by usage I find maybe just the stated as (P1932) as contextual one.
Please, can You send examples of them of contextual and additive?
regards
Michal Pavlovic
BaaN/Infor-Administrator
________________________________
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2018 08:32:43 -0700
From: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider(a)gmail.com>
To: wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wikidata] frequency of qualifier predicates
Message-ID: <6ba70a52-1f8f-eb3a-8425-7760c56d34e2(a)gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
That does the trick, thanks.
I was trying to see how many uses of Wikidata qualifiers are contextual (i.e.,
give information about in which context the statement is valid) and which were
additive (i.e., do not limit where the statement is valid).
Of the top ten qualifier properties by usage, five are contextual, three are
additive, and one does not carry world information. The last can be
considered to be contextual, but also might be considered to not carry world
information.
peter
On 07/14/2018 01:19 AM, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 14, 2018 at 1:42 AM Peter F. Patel-Schneider
> <pfpschneider(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm trying to get a good estimate of how often which qualifier predicate is used.
>>
>>
>> The obvious query times out, as expected, so I was trying to find a list of
>> predicates that are used as qualifiers so that I can craft a query for each of
>> them. There is
>> https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wiki…
>> but that can't be trusted as it doesn't include start time (P580) or end time
>> (P582) which I expect to be the most common qualifier predicates.
>>
>>
>> So, I'm stumped. Any suggestions?
> There is https://emea01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftools.wm… which
> might help you.
>
>
> Cheers
> Lydia
>
________________________________
This e-mail and any attachment is confidential and may be legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by returning this e-mail.
Neways Electronics NV is not responsible for the improper or incomplete transmission of any e-mail, or for any delay in its receipt.
________________________________
Wikimedia District of Columbia is proud to be the recipient of $50,000 in
support from the Knight Prototype Fund, an initiative of the John S. and
James L. Knight Foundation. Wikimedia DC will collaborate with the
Smithsonian Institution on a project called the "Wiki Art Depiction
Explorer", an effort to create an interface for museum visitors and other
art enthusiasts to crowdsource metadata about visual depictions in museum
artworks. Making this data more accurate and robust will allow further and
deeper discovery of these works by anyone in the world.
The project was created by three longtime Wikimedia DC volunteers: Andrew
Lih, author of The Wikipedia Revolution, Effie Kapsalis, Chief of Content &
Communications Strategy at the Smithsonian Institution Archives, and Robert
Fernandez, member of the board of directors of Wikimedia DC. Andrew Lih
is currently in South Africa for Wikimania and looks forward to talking to
other Wikimedia volunteers about this project.
The aim of the Knight Prototype Fund is to support the development of
innovative ideas to use technology to engage people with the arts and
cultural institutions. The John S. and James L. Knight Foundation has
previously supported organizations and projects related to Wikimedia,
including the Wikimedia Foundation.
For the announcement from the Knight Foundation, see
https://knightfoundation.org/press/releases/knight-prototype-fund-awards-pr…
Reminder: Technical Advice IRC meeting again **tomorrow, Wednesday 3-4 pm
UTC** on #wikimedia-tech.
This time with a Wikimedia Special[1] in English and German!
The Technical Advice IRC meeting is open for all volunteer developers,
topics and questions. This can be anything from "how to get started" over
"who would be the best contact for X" to specific questions on your project.
If you know already what you would like to discuss or ask, please add your
topic to the next meeting:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Advice_IRC_Meeting
Hope to see you there!
Michi (for WMDE’s tech team)
[1]: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T199093
--
Michael F. Schönitzer
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
I'm trying to get a good estimate of how often which qualifier predicate is used.
The obvious query times out, as expected, so I was trying to find a list of
predicates that are used as qualifiers so that I can craft a query for each of
them. There is
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:List_of_properties/Wikidata_qualifier
but that can't be trusted as it doesn't include start time (P580) or end time
(P582) which I expect to be the most common qualifier predicates.
So, I'm stumped. Any suggestions?
peter
Reminder: Technical Advice IRC meeting again **tomorrow, Wednesday 3-4 pm
UTC** on #wikimedia-tech.
This time in English and Farsi!
The Technical Advice IRC meeting is open for all volunteer developers,
topics and questions. This can be anything from "how to get started" over
"who would be the best contact for X" to specific questions on your project.
If you know already what you would like to discuss or ask, please add your
topic to the next meeting:
https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Technical_Advice_IRC_Meeting
Hope to see you there!
Michi (for WMDE’s tech team)
--
Michael F. Schönitzer
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. (030) 219 158 26-0
http://wikimedia.de
Stellen Sie sich eine Welt vor, in der jeder Mensch an der Menge allen
Wissens frei teilhaben kann. Helfen Sie uns dabei!
http://spenden.wikimedia.de/
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Rob Speer wrote:
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
The comparison to DBpedia is interesting: the terms for DBpedia state
"Attribution in this case means keep DBpedia URIs visible and active
through at least one (preferably all) of @href, <link />, or "Link:". If
live links are impossible (e.g., when printed on paper), a textual
blurb-based attribution is acceptable."
http://wiki.dbpedia.org/terms-imprint
So according to these terms, when someone displays data from DBpedia, it is
entirely sufficient to attribute DBpedia.
What that means is that DBpedia follows exactly the same theory as
Wikidata: it is OK to extract data from Wikipedia and republish it as your
own dataset under your own copyright without requiring attribution to the
original source of the extraction.
(A bit more problematic might be the fact that DBpedia also republishes
whole paragraphs of Text under these terms, but that's another story)
My understanding is that all that Wikidata has extracted from Wikipedia is
non-copyrightable in the first place and thus republishing it under a
different license (or, as in the case of DBpedia for simple triples, with a
different attribution) is legally sound.
If there is disagreement with that, I would be interested which content
exactly is considered to be under copyright and where license has not been
followed on Wikidata.
For completion: the discussion is going on in parallel on the Wikidata
project chat and in Phabricator:
https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728#4212728https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Wikipedia_and_other_Wik…
I would appreciate if we could keep the discussion in a single place.
Gnom1 on Phabricator has offered to actually answer legal questions, but we
need to come up with the questions that we want to ask. If it should be,
for example, as Rob Speer states on the bug, "has the copyright of
interwiki links been breached by having them be moved to Wikidata?", I'd be
quite happy with that question - if that's the disagreement, let us ask
Legal help and see if my understanding or yours is correct.
Does this sound like a reasonable question? Or which other question would
you like to ask instead?
On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 4:15 PM Rob Speer <rob(a)luminoso.com> wrote:
> > As always, copyright is predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the
> enemy of science and knowledge
>
> Well, this kind of gets to the heart of the issue, doesn't it.
>
> I support the Creative Commons license, including the share-alike term,
> which requires copyright in order to work, and I've contributed to multiple
> Wikimedia projects with the understanding that my work would be protected
> by CC-By-SA.
>
> Wikidata is engaged in a project-wide act of disobedience against CC-By-SA.
> I would say that GerardM has provided an excellent summary of the attitude
> toward Creative Commons that I've encountered on Wikidata: "it's holding us
> back", "it's the enemy", "you can't copyright knowledge", "you can't make
> us follow it", etc.
>
> The result of this, by the way, is that commercial entities sell modified
> versions of Wikidata with impunity. It undermines the terms of other
> resources such as DBPedia, which also contains facts extracted from
> Wikipedia and respects its Share-Alike terms. Why would anyone use DBPedia
> and have to agree to share alike, when they can get similar data from
> Wikidata which promises them it's CC-0?
>
> On Wed, 16 May 2018 at 21:43 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Thank you for the overly broad misrepresentation. As always, copyright is
> > predatory. As we can prove that copyright is the enemy of science and
> > knowledge we should not be upset that *copyright *is abused we should
> > welcome it as it proves the point. Also when we use texts from everywhere
> > and rephrase it in Wikipedia articles "we" are not lily white either.
> >
> > In "them old days" generally we felt that when people would use
> Wikipedia,
> > it would only serve our purpose; share the sum of all knowledge. I still
> > feel really good about that. And, it has been shown that what we do;
> > maintain / curate / update that data that it is not easily given to do as
> > well as "we" do it.
> >
> > When we are to be more precise with our copyright, there are a few things
> > we could do to make copyright more transparent. When data is to be
> uploaded
> > (Commons / Wikipedia or Wikidata) we should use a user that is OWNED and
> > operated by the copyright holder. The operation may be by proxy and as a
> > consequence there is no longer a question about copyright as the
> copyright
> > holder can do as we wants. This makes any future noises just that,
> > annoying.
> >
> > As to copyright on Wikidata, when you consider copyright using data from
> > Wikipedia. The question is: "What Wikipedia" I have copied a lot of data
> > from several Wikipedias and believe me, from a quality point of view
> there
> > is much to be gained by using Wikidata as an instrument for good because
> it
> > is really strong in identifying friends and false friends. It is superior
> > as a tool for disambiguation.
> >
> > About the copyright on data, the overriding question with data is: do you
> > copy data wholesale in Wikidata. That is what a database copyright is
> > about. As I wrote on my blog [1], the best data to include is data that
> is
> > corroborated by the fact that it is present in multiple sources. This
> > negates the notion of a single source, it also underscores that much of
> the
> > data everywhere is replicated a lot. It also underscores, again, the
> notion
> > that data that is only present in single sources is what needs attention.
> > It needs tender loving care, it needs other sources to establish
> > credentials. That is in its own right what makes any claim of copyright
> > moot. It is in this process that it becomes a "creative" process negating
> > the copyright held on databases.
> >
> > I welcome the attention that is given to copyright in Wikidata. However
> our
> > attention to copyright is predatory in two ways. It is how can we get
> > around existing copyright and how can we protect our own. As argued,
> > Wikidata shines when it is used for what it is intended to be; the place
> > that brings data, of Wikipedias first and elsewhere second, together to
> be
> > used as a repository of quality, open and linked data.
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> https://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2018/05/wikidata-copyright-and-linked-d…
> >
> > On 11 May 2018 at 23:10, Rob Speer <rob(a)luminoso.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Wow, thanks for the heads up. When I was getting upset about projects
> > that
> > > change the license on Wikimedia content and commercialize it, I had no
> > idea
> > > that Wikidata was providing them the cover to do so. The Creative
> Commons
> > > violation is coming from inside the house!
> > >
> > > On Tue, 8 May 2018 at 03:48 mathieu stumpf guntz <
> > > psychoslave(a)culture-libre.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hello everybody,
> > > >
> > > > There is a phabricator ticket on Solve legal uncertainty of Wikidata
> > > > <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T193728> that you might be
> > interested
> > > > to look at and participate in.
> > > >
> > > > As Denny suggested in the ticket to give it more visibility through
> the
> > > > discussion on the Wikidata chat
> > > > <
> > > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#
> > > Importing_datasets_under_incompatible_licenses>,
> > > >
> > > > I thought it was interesting to highlight it a bit more.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/
> > > wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>