On 02.05.2016 20:26, Jan Macura wrote:
Thanks for reply.
2016-05-02 7:19 GMT+02:00 Markus Kroetzsch <markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de mailto:markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de>:
To be honest, I had not expected this to be of much importance for many users at the time, but if there is interest in us updating our dumps to the new format, we can certainly do this in the next couple of weeks.Well, the point is, I was using the thirt party SPARQL enpoints of Universidad de Chile ([1], dead now) and Openlink ([2]), where the queries with this ontology worked fine, and now when I discovered, that WMF already launched its own endpoint, the queries don't work.. Little confused, so I am asking.. The other thing is, my primary sources were available scientific articles, namely [3]. Now it seems that *a lot* has changed since.
Yes, we should publish an updated journal version of that paper to ensure that written records are up-to-date again (research and application each have their own pace that is hard to synchronise).
It is not that much work to update queries to the new format, but I can see that it takes a while to look for IDs to replace the old ones. Maybe the easiest way is to look at the example queries provided in the query.wikidata.org UI. The use of the new ontology URIs is really almost the same as for the old ones.
The Chilean endpoint was provided as an early testbed before the official service was life. We have stopped running it, for obvious reasons. A big advantage of the official Wikimedia endpoint is that it is updated with live data in near real-time (subject to availability ;-). It is also fairly reliable, since there are normally two servers answering queries.
Best regards,
Markus
[1] http://milenio.dcc.uchile.cl/sparql [2] http://lod.openlinksw.com/ [3] http://korrekt.org/papers/Wikidata-RDF-export-2014.pdf
Thanks Jan
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata