Gerard,
what is there practical about having a query language that 1) is not a
standard and never will be 2) is not supported by any other tool or
project and never will be?
I would understand this kind of reasoning coming from a hobbyist
project, but not from one claiming to be a global "free linked
database".
Martynas
On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 11:37 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> Query has been promised and unofficially we have it for a VERY long time..
> It is called WDQ. it is used in many tools. The official query will only
> provide a subset of functionality for quite some time as I understand it.
>
> Practical cases in RDF for what by whom ? Wikidata is first and foremost a
> vehicle to bring interwiki links to our projects. Then and only then it
> becomes relevant to store data about the items involved. This data may be
> used in info boxes and what not in our projects.. THAT is practical use to
> our community.
>
> RDF may of interest to others and it may be possible to do practical things
> by them but that does not prioritise it. I do not think Wikidata can do
> better. As far as I am concerned it is the least of our problems. The reuse
> of data is first to happen within our projects and THAT is not so much of a
> technical problem at all.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 28 October 2014 11:26, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org> wrote:
>>
>> Gerard,
>>
>> what about query functionality for example? This has been long
>> promised but shows no real progress.
>>
>> And why do you think practical cases cannot be implemented using RDF?
>> What is the justification for ignoring the whole standard and
>> implementation stack? What makes you think Wikidata can do better than
>> RDF?
>>
>>
>> Martynas
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 28, 2014 at 6:48 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Hoi,
>> > Hell no. Wikidata is first and foremost a product that is actually used.
>> > It
>> > has that way from the start. Prioritising RDF over actual practical use
>> > cases is imho wrong. If anything the continuous tinkering on the format
>> > of
>> > dumps has mostly brought us grieve. Dumps that can no longer be read
>> > like
>> > currently for the Wikidata statistics really hurt.
>> >
>> > So lets not spend time at this time on RDF, Lets ensure that what we
>> > have
>> > works, works well and plan carefully for a better RDF but lets only have
>> > it
>> > go in production AFTER we know that it works well.
>> > Thanks,
>> > GerardM
>> >
>> > On 28 October 2014 02:46, Martynas Jusevičius <martynas@graphity.org>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hey all,
>> >>
>> >> so I see there is some work being done on mapping Wikidata data model
>> >> to RDF [1].
>> >>
>> >> Just a thought: what if you actually used RDF and Wikidata's concepts
>> >> modeled in it right from the start? And used standard RDF tools, APIs,
>> >> query language (SPARQL) instead of building the whole thing from
>> >> scratch?
>> >>
>> >> Is it just me or was this decision really a colossal waste of
>> >> resources?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> [1] http://korrekt.org/papers/Wikidata-RDF-export-2014.pdf
>> >>
>> >> Martynas
>> >> http://graphityhq.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
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l