(in particular because I expect that character limit to have to change for Wiktionary in Wikidata)
Markus' description of the decision for the limit corresponds with mine. I also think that this decision can be revisited. I would still advice for caution, due to technical issues, but I am sure that the development team will make a well-informed decision on this. It would be sad if valid usecases could not be supported due to that.
On 13.09.2016 11:39, Sebastian Burgstaller wrote:
> Hi all,
> I think this topic might have been discussed many months ago. For
> certain data types in the chemical compound space (P233, canonical
> smiles, P2017 isomeric smiles and P234 Inchi key) a higher character
> limit than 400 would be really helpful (1500 to 2000 chars (I sense
> that this might cause problems with SPARQL)). Are there any plans on
> implementing this? In general, for quality assurance, many string
> property types would profit from a fixed max string length.
FWIW, I recall that the main reason for the char limit originally was to
discourage the use of Wikidata for textual content. Simply put, we did
not want Wikipedia articles in the data. Long texts could also make
copyright/license issues more relevant (though, in theory, a copyrighted
poem could be rather short).
However, given that we now have such a well informed community with
established practices and good quality checks, it seems unproblematic to
lift the character limit. I don't think there are major technical
reasons for having it. Surely, BlazeGraph (the WMF SPARQL engine) should
not expect texts to be short, and I would be surprised if they did. So I
would not expect problems on this side.
> Sebastian Burgstaller-Muehlbacher, PhD
> Research Associate
> Andrew Su Lab
> MEM-216, Department of Molecular and Experimental Medicine
> The Scripps Research Institute
> 10550 North Torrey Pines Road
> La Jolla, CA 92037
> Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata mailing list