Hoi,
As it is Reasonator is able to show a query for either. When Wikidata has an item for "Mayor of New York" [1], Reasonator shows you all the mayors of New York and it shows them in order of date when a date is available.

Theoretically a similar page can be created for the result of "office held" "mayor" and "is in the administrative yadiyadi" "New York". It has to be developed. Really important is that I can envision this to happen in Reasonator and WDQ and I would be thrilled when Wikidata itself could do this. However, I fear that this will not happen in the foreseeable future.

Joe, please consider how things may work out in the first place in Wikidata and then, only then consider other projects and then, only then Wikipedia, your English Wikipedia at that.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 17 June 2014 20:50, Joe Filceolaire <filceolaire@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi Gerard

If we standardise on the "Mayor" of "New York" pattern and add a qualifier "equivalent to:"Mayor of New York" for those cases where we do have a specific property then would Reasonator be able to cope with that?

On the other hand I've been doing some more poking on en:Wikipedia and I found a "List of United States Senators from Georgia" (and for many other offices) which, as I see it, is equivalent to an item for "United States Senator from Georgia" (just needs a rename) so I guess we could make the statement "Office held:United States Senator from Georgia".

I'm guessing most wikipedias would consider lists like this to be notable, even for local mayors, so maybe that office is notable and should have an item separate from that for the district.

Confused now.

Joe


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 7:15 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
First of all, we are talking about Wikidata. What a Wikipedia does, any Wikipedia does gets reflected in Wikidata but Wikidata does not need to stop there.

When there is a "Mayor of Foo", you can easily query for all the mayors of Foo. With more difficulty we can do a similar thing when we have composite queries for "office held" "mayor" and  "in the administrative dadida" "Foo". (by implication Foo has a mayor and not a president).

My problem is that functionality like Reasonator does not support this. I thoroughly hate all the arguments that are theoretical and not practical. This is a "splitter and lumper" issue where Wikidata itself does not support us at all and is unlikely to do so as far as I understand things. I love to learn that I am wrong and that we can make all the mayors just mayor.

NOTABILITY
When the Occitan Wikipedia makes a useful distinction, we have to deal with it. When the English Wikipedia does not, it makes no difference whatsoever.

Notability in Wikidata is about relevance and relevance in Wikidata only.. An example: in the Esperanto Wikipedia people can be notable because they speak Esperanto. Often not more than that can be said about these "human"s. Given that eo.wp includes them they are notable in Wikidata.
Thanks,
     GerardM




On 17 June 2014 19:56, Joe Filceolaire <filceolaire@gmail.com> wrote:
here are my thoughts about this:

"MAYOR OF FOO" VERSUS "MAYOR" OF "FOO"
I am in favour of a separate item for every town and village which has a mayor or a council.
I am against have a "Mayor of Foo" item for each these. If the mayor gets an item then the deputy mayor and the sheriff and the dog cacher should get items too. Much better to use the 'of' qualifier.
If an administrative division has 2 councils e.g. the Senate and the Congress in many US states then create an item for "Iowa Senate" and use the statement "office held:Senator. of:Iowa Senate" so it keeps the same pattern.

NOTABILITY
My opinion is that a separate item should be created wherever this is necessary to record statements about a concept. If there are no useful statements you can make about it then it probably doesn't need an item. 

Example 1: The "Iowa Senate" has a foundation date, a quantity of members, a headquarters location. "Iowa Senator" is a subclass of "Senator" and there is not much more you can say.  (Note that even on the English Wikipedia "US Senator" is a redirect to "US Senate". Only the Occitan wikipedia has separate items for these. See Q13217683)

Example 2: If we want to record the overall results (votes and seats won by each party) for the 2014 elections to the Iowa senate then we will need an item for "2014 Senate elections in Iowa". 

Example 3: If we want to record the results for each constituency the we will need an item for "2014 elections in North Iowa Senate district" and for all the other electoral districts (but I hope we can come up with something so we don't have to create an item for all the failed candidates).

That is what I think.

Joe


On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 5:05 PM, Paul Houle <ontology2@gmail.com> wrote:
So far as data types go I'd look at the structure here

http://www.freebase.com/business/employment_tenure?schema=

Something parallel to this satisfies the major requirements for
describing who was the Mayor of Where When;  perhaps the Mayor of New
York is particularly notable,  but sum total of significance of all
mayors surely is greater and enough to be notable.

Of course an uncountable number of "composite concepts" that people
might want to reference that can be derived from a generic instance.
For instance,  "Economy of Japan" might be a good LCSH heading,  but
even the LCSH creates headings like that in a faceted organization
that recognizes that there is an "Economy of [place]" for any [place].
If all of the useful composite concepts were materialized,  you could
puff Wikidata up by orders of magnitudes.
ᐧ

On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Tom Morris <tfmorris@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sad to see the Deletionists taking hold on Wikidata too.
>
> Tom
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 4:31 PM, Thomas Douillard
> <thomas.douillard@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, there seem to be some cognitive dissonance going on here, it's
>> weird.
>>
>>
>> 2014-06-16 22:08 GMT+02:00 Derric Atzrott <datzrott@alizeepathology.com>:
>>
>>> > That's certainly what the policy says. It's not what some admins
>>> > accept, though.
>>> >
>>> > A direct quote from one, from as recently as March this year:
>>> >
>>> >   *   The general spirit of the notability policy is that Wikipedia
>>> > finds [the subject] notable
>>>
>>> This was also the general vibe that I had gotten that informed my
>>> understanding of
>>> notability on Wikidata before someone pointed out that policy actually
>>> says
>>> differently.
>>>
>>> Thank you,
>>> Derric Atzrott
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>



--
Paul Houle
Expert on Freebase, DBpedia, Hadoop and RDF
(607) 539 6254    paul.houle on Skype   ontology2@gmail.com

_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l


_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l



_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l



_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l