FYI we have SPARQL Federation with Nobelprize.com see T200668https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200668
[cid:3673ede4-ebd4-443c-8e45-e5b655f39ac7] T200668 Set up Nobel Data as federated search with Wikidatahttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T200668 Feedback Hans Mehlin - Nobel Media AB. Kul! Wikidata är högt upp min min önskelista. Vet att jag har fullt upp med annat till mitten av oktober. Hoppas sedan få mandat att arbeta mer med våra datamängder. phabricator.wikimedia.org
And a Listeria list that every night compare Wikidata <-> with Nobelprize.com https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Salgo60/ListeriaNobelData3
Regards Magnus Sälgö Stockholm, Sweden salgo60@msn.com
________________________________ From: Wikidata wikidata-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of Peter Patel-Schneider pfpschneider@gmail.com Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2019 6:36 AM To: wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikidata] Nobel Prizes and consensus in Wikidata
Indeed. Thanks for the example. I'll probably incorporate it in my talk at WikidataCon.
As far as I know there is no general method for nudging towards consensus for cases like these. The onus appears to me to be on whoever is entering the information to look for similar situations and model them all the same. (In this case it appears that a recent change to the Nobel Peace Prize was made to remove it being a subclass of Nobel Prize, actually reducing commonality.)
But what can be done in the future? One way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that might belong to a group, and try to model them the same as other members of the group. Another way to go is to ask that editors be more careful when editing items that have parts/instances/subclasses and check that all the other items are modeled the same way.
I prefer something similar to the second way, where editors of classes and properties (or just about anything that is going to be the common target of a property, but instance and subclass and subproperty seem to me to be the most important such properties) are asked to be careful to specify the relationship between the class or property and the other items that target it. So whoever does major editing on Nobel Prize should add a comment on the relationship between the various Nobel Prizes and Nobel Prize. (Having such information is quite common for concepts in Cyc.)
Actually Nobel Prize isn't the greatest example for my preference because there doesn't seem to be any Wikidata items for the even the famous Nobel Prizes. Suppose there was a Wikidata item for Einstein's Nobel Prize in Physics. Then its relationship to Nobel Prize would provide guidance for the relationship between the Nobel Prize in Physics and Nobel Prizes itself.
I find modeling deficiencies like this in lots of places in Wikidata. That's not a severe problem if you have the resources of Google to throw at curating Wikidata information. But if you don't have this level of resources available for curating Wikidata information then these sorts of infelicities are a significant barrier to using Wikidata.
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
On 9/27/19 12:34 PM, Aidan Hogan wrote:
Hey all,
Andra recently mentioned about finding laureates in Wikidata, and it reminded me that some weeks ago I was trying to come up with a SPARQL query to find all Nobel Prize Winners in Wikidata.
What I ended up with was:
SELECT ?winner WHERE { ?winner wdt:P166 ?prize . ?prize (wdt:P361|wdt:P31|wdt:P279) wd:Q7191 . }
More specifically, looking into the data I found:
Nobel Peace Prize (Q35637) part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922) subclass of (P279) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Economics (Q47170) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Chemistry (Q44585) instance of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104) subclass of (P31) Nobel Prize (Q7191) ; part of (P361) Nobel Prize (Q7191) .
In summary, of the six types of Nobel prizes, three different properties are used in five different combinations to state that they "are", in fact, Nobel prizes. :)
Now while it would be interesting to discuss the relative merits of P31 vs. P279 vs. P361 vs. some combination thereof in this case and similar such cases, I guess I am more interested in the general problem of the lack of consensus that such a case exhibits.
What processes (be they social, technical, or some combination thereof) are currently in place to reach consensus in these cases in Wikidata?
What could be put in place in future to highlight and reach consensus?
Or is the idea more to leave the burden of "integrating" different viewpoints to the consumer (e.g., to the person writing the query)?
(Of course these are all "million dollar questions" that have been with the Semantic Web since the beginning, but I am curious about what is being done or can be done in the specific context of Wikidata to foster consensus and reduce heterogeneity in such cases.)
Best, Aidan
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
