On 07.03.2016 09:13, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 2:57 AM Tom Morris
<tfmorris(a)gmail.com
<mailto:tfmorris@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:31 PM, Lydia Pintscher
<Lydia.Pintscher(a)wikimedia.de <mailto:Lydia.Pintscher@wikimedia.de>>
wrote:
On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 10:56 PM Stas Malyshev
<smalyshev(a)wikimedia.org <mailto:smalyshev@wikimedia.org>> wrote:
Is there a process somewhere of how the checking is done,
what are
criteria, etc.? I've read
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Addshore/Identifiers but
there's a
lot of discussion but not clear if it ever come to some end.
Also not
clear what the process is - should I just move a property I
like to
"good to convert"? Should I run it through some checklist
first? Should
I ask somebody?
Yes. Good ones should be moved to good to convert. If no-one
disagrees we'll convert them.
So, no decision criteria? Just whatever we individually like?
What are the rules for "disputed" - is some process for
review planned?
Let's concentrate on the ones people can agree on for now. We'll
tackle the ones that are disputed in the next step. If editors
can't sort it out I will make an executive decision at some
point but I don't think this will be needed.
I think the fact that some obvious good identifiers like IMDb have
been blocked has made potential contributors unsure how to evaluate
other candidates which would also, on the surface, seem obviously good.
Perhaps since the criteria aren't being used, someone could just
delete all the proposed criteria from the page and replace the old
text with something like "Whatever you, personally, think is best"
so that people know what's expected of them? That might help break
the logjam. I know it would make me more comfortable in contributing.
Ok. I think we're making this much more complicated than necessary. The
question you should ask yourself is: Does this identify a concept in
another database/website/...? Nice to have: a website to link to.
Once we have that we can look at corner cases and exceptions.
The community actually already has a class for such properties:
"Wikidata property representing a unique identifier"
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q19847637
In general, the community uses several classes for properties that could
have been used for UI organisation, rather than introducing new
datatypes. The current discussion is caused mainly by the fact that
there is just *one* new datatype, but many types of identifiers based on
different criteria -- so people argue which one the new datatype should
represent. The classes used on properties are much less controversial,
because one just have one for each criterion that people consider
relevant. For example, there also is
"multi-source external identifier"
http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q21264328
There are many other classes that could be used in the interface, e.g.,
"Wikidata property for human relationships"
<http://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q22964231> that one could use very well
to group properties. One would not need to use all classes to group
properties: there would be a (short) list that the community would
decide on. I think this is the best approach to get reasonable property
groups Reasonator-style into Wikidata at some point. It works much
better than creating new datatypes for each case, it can build on
existing data (rather than starting new discussions on datatype
conversion), and it has the advantage that it can also group properties
of different types.
Markus
--
Markus Kroetzsch
Faculty of Computer Science
Technische Universität Dresden
+49 351 463 38486
http://korrekt.org/