Am 20/mar/2014 um 07:58 schrieb Susanna Ånäs susanna.anas@gmail.com:
Do the notability guidelines of Wikimedia allow storing only important places?
because the consequence of using wikidata will be to have wikidata objects not only for places but also for minor streets and squares as soon as they change name (most of these will not have Wikipedia articles)
cheers, Martin
Hoi, It is in the planning that Wikidata will use its engine for Wikimedia Commons. We are talking about the media files that is currently "only" 20,503,455 freely usable media files. The model that is considered is one where two Wikidata databases will be used. One for the meta data of the imagery and one for the more globally relevant information.
A similar thing can be considered for streets and stuff as well. Obviously it needs a lot of thought but from an abstract point of view, a street or an image, it is just another category of data. When it works for one type of data it could / should work for another type of data as well. Thanks, Gerard
On 20 March 2014 08:37, Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist@gmail.com wrote:
Am 20/mar/2014 um 07:58 schrieb Susanna Ånäs susanna.anas@gmail.com:
Do the notability guidelines of Wikimedia allow storing only important
places?
because the consequence of using wikidata will be to have wikidata objects not only for places but also for minor streets and squares as soon as they change name (most of these will not have Wikipedia articles)
cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
A similar thing can be considered for streets and stuff as well. Obviously it needs a lot of thought but from an abstract point of view, a street or an image, it is just another category of data. When it works for one type of data it could / should work for another type of data as well.
In that regard perhaps it would make more sense for OSM or another entity to run a Wikibase Repository dedicated exclusively to geographic entities/names.
Thanks, Micru
I think wikidata has the potential to tie it all together. There is no need to split the information over 2 databases.
What would be nice, is a way to say: this object is now split/merged. Save the current version in OSM and save the historic version of those objects in OHM. And all the metadata and in wikidata. Then point from OSM and OHM to wikidata. Use Overpass to retrieve the relevant objects based on their ids in wikidata.
Polyglot
2014-03-20 11:51 GMT+01:00 David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
A similar thing can be considered for streets and stuff as well. Obviously it needs a lot of thought but from an abstract point of view, a street or an image, it is just another category of data. When it works for one type of data it could / should work for another type of data as well.
In that regard perhaps it would make more sense for OSM or another entity to run a Wikibase Repository dedicated exclusively to geographic entities/names.
Thanks, Micru
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Jo winfixit@gmail.com wrote:
I think wikidata has the potential to tie it all together. There is no need to split the information over 2 databases.
It depends on how much granularity you want. If you want to use just well-known entities, then for sure, wikidata can tie it all together. If you want street level (or even building level) information, that would be too much for Wikidata.
There was already a similar discussion regarding bibliographic data. "Should Wikidata collect *all* bibliographic data?" And the consensus was not all, just what is relevant as hinted by Wikipedia/Wikisource (and common sense).
Cheers, Micru
Given that we want to collaborate with openstreetmap we could host it for them Thanks GerardM Op 20 mrt. 2014 11:53 schreef "David Cuenca" dacuetu@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
A similar thing can be considered for streets and stuff as well. Obviously it needs a lot of thought but from an abstract point of view, a street or an image, it is just another category of data. When it works for one type of data it could / should work for another type of data as well.
In that regard perhaps it would make more sense for OSM or another entity to run a Wikibase Repository dedicated exclusively to geographic entities/names.
Thanks, Micru
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Given that we want to collaborate with openstreetmap we could host it for them
I like the idea of a Wikibase-powered OSM data repository, it is a pity that the WM Incubator is only for language versions of existing projects and not for new projects... OTOH, since Wikidata is (or is supposed to be) language-agnostic, couldn't we argue that domain-specific data projects are to wikidata what language editions are to wikipedia?
I wonder how hard would be to set-up a labs Wikibase instance for OSM developers to experiment with it? Or even if it would be enough interest?
Thanks, Micru
I sense a bit of consensus even across the projects. I think both options have their pros and cons:
An independent project will require a lot of MediaWiki related knowledge that is not necessarily found in an initial group of interested individuals. Or combined OSM, MediaWiki & Wikidata knowledge, which may be even more sparse. It would be more relaxed in regard to rules and guidelines. Could it be re-integrated to Wikidata later, or would it run to in-evident oblivion?
An integrated path would require complying to all guidelines eg. re: notability. It would cause a lot of waiting time for reaching consensus while defining properties - which is also needed in an independent project. Once consensus would be achieved, the development could be fast. There would be continuous maintenance and development in relation to the main Wikidata project. This option would require a lot of negotiating between the Wikimedia project/community, the OSM/OHM project/community and also those who have done research on the topics outside these projects. It might prove impossible. In the end, the data would be more easily integrated to other kinds of data, and adopted outside the project for reuse.
Are you going to be in the Zürich hackathon to discuss this?
Susanna
2014-03-20 17:28 GMT+02:00 David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 3:36 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Given that we want to collaborate with openstreetmap we could host it for them
I like the idea of a Wikibase-powered OSM data repository, it is a pity that the WM Incubator is only for language versions of existing projects and not for new projects... OTOH, since Wikidata is (or is supposed to be) language-agnostic, couldn't we argue that domain-specific data projects are to wikidata what language editions are to wikipedia?
I wonder how hard would be to set-up a labs Wikibase instance for OSM developers to experiment with it? Or even if it would be enough interest?
Thanks, Micru
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Susanna Ånäs susanna.anas@gmail.comwrote:
An independent project will require a lot of MediaWiki related knowledge that is not necessarily found in an initial group of interested individuals. Or combined OSM, MediaWiki & Wikidata knowledge, which may be even more sparse. It would be more relaxed in regard to rules and guidelines. Could it be re-integrated to Wikidata later, or would it run to in-evident oblivion?
It could be re-integrated, but I wouldn't start a wikibase repo only for the specific case of historical data. If there is a sizeable community that could mantain a full-fledged repository of geographic entities (as understood in Wikidata terms), then the historic information could be a subset of that. OSM can do it (and actually it is being done more or less), but that is something that should be decided by their community.
An integrated path would require complying to all guidelines eg. re: notability. It would cause a lot of waiting time for reaching consensus while defining properties - which is also needed in an independent project.
I think the main intersection points are entities and properties. With entities it is already happening (using property p402https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P402), but with properties we still have no technical means of saying "this property in WD is the same as this other property in project X".
Are you going to be in the Zürich hackathon to discuss this?
Not sure yet, but I have seen that Katie and Daniel will be there and they
have a deeper technical knowledge than me :)
Cheers, Micru
Using property P402 is not a very good idea since object ids in OSM aren't guaranteed to be stable. nodes, ways and relations each have their own 'namespace' and sometimes information is refined by moving it from a node to a way or from a node or a way to a relation (multipolygon), usually this means he original object vanishes and property P402 isn't pointing anywhere anymore.
The only way that makes sense is to add wikidata tags to OSM objects.
Polyglot
2014-03-20 18:21 GMT+01:00 David Cuenca dacuetu@gmail.com:
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:17 PM, Susanna Ånäs susanna.anas@gmail.comwrote:
An independent project will require a lot of MediaWiki related knowledge that is not necessarily found in an initial group of interested individuals. Or combined OSM, MediaWiki & Wikidata knowledge, which may be even more sparse. It would be more relaxed in regard to rules and guidelines. Could it be re-integrated to Wikidata later, or would it run to in-evident oblivion?
It could be re-integrated, but I wouldn't start a wikibase repo only for the specific case of historical data. If there is a sizeable community that could mantain a full-fledged repository of geographic entities (as understood in Wikidata terms), then the historic information could be a subset of that. OSM can do it (and actually it is being done more or less), but that is something that should be decided by their community.
An integrated path would require complying to all guidelines eg. re: notability. It would cause a lot of waiting time for reaching consensus while defining properties – which is also needed in an independent project.
I think the main intersection points are entities and properties. With entities it is already happening (using property p402https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P402), but with properties we still have no technical means of saying "this property in WD is the same as this other property in project X".
Are you going to be in the Zürich hackathon to discuss this?
Not sure yet, but I have seen that Katie and Daniel will be there and
they have a deeper technical knowledge than me :)
Cheers, Micru
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 6:28 PM, Jo winfixit@gmail.com wrote:
Using property P402 is not a very good idea since object ids in OSM aren't guaranteed to be stable. nodes, ways and relations each have their own 'namespace' and sometimes information is refined by moving it from a node to a way or from a node or a way to a relation (multipolygon), usually this means he original object vanishes and property P402 isn't pointing anywhere anymore.
The only way that makes sense is to add wikidata tags to OSM objects.
Or that OSM would have their own repository of entities and then we would interlink both ;)
Cheers, Micru