Hoi, As you know I am not a fan at all about these special values. I can follow logic but do not need to agree.
When "novalue" is not to be seen as a value. What is the point.. The point is to state there is no value right ? .. and that makes it of value. Right ahum, I admit it is confusing but is that not the point. ?
It is similar to a lot of referenced statements that when you check them are NOT what is stated at all. Thanks, GerardM
On 26 April 2015 at 22:37, Markus Krötzsch markus@semantic-mediawiki.org wrote:
On 26.04.2015 22:28, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, It is a matter of perspective. From my perspective a value exists or not. Depending on that I may want to process. When you state novalue there is a value of novalue and that is not the same as there not being a value in the first place.
Ah, I see. I think any query interface should allow you to find both: things with a novalue-claim and things with no claim at all. You can then pick your perspective on these two things as you like.
However, it would be an error to treat "novalue" as a kind of "some value", and it would be an even bigger error to treat "novalue" as a specific value (that can be equal to other such values). For example, a WDQ tree query should never go through "novalue" (and not even through a "somevalue" a.k.a. "unknownvalue"), as I am sure you will agree.
Cheers,
Markus
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l