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@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l