--
Maxime Lathuilière
maxlath.eu <http://maxlath.eu> - @maxlath
Inventaire <https://inventaire.io> - @inventaire_io
wiki(pedia|data): Zorglub27
<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Zorglub27>
Le 21/04/2015 12:03, Markus Krötzsch a écrit :
On 21.04.2015 11:27, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
Am 21.04.2015 um 00:50 schrieb Markus Krötzsch:
> On 20.04.2015 23:47, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
>> Something seems to be wrong with the order, though. Munich (pop >
>> 1m in all
>> statements) is listed way after Chemnitz (pop < 300k in all
>> statements). Any
>> idea why?
>
> Good catch. My query was too simple (using one "random" population
> instead of
> the biggest one). Here is a better query, this time even with
> populations given:
I still wonder how the old result came about, since the *all*
population values
for Munich are much bigger than *all* the population numbers for
Chemnitz. Even
with picking a random value, how could the order have been reversed?
Good question. I don't know. Maybe there is some issue in Virtuoso
here after all. However, the rest of the order looked sensible to me
even in the old query. It could also be that our (non-live) data had a
temporary glitch that has been fixed on Wikidata in the meantime; one
should check the population values we get with SPARQL to be sure.
Cheers,
Markus
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org