Perhaps high quality documentation already exists? Would be great to have at least a syllabus (learn this first, then move on to this, then on to... Might be good to also have common / high value "use-case" scenarios with pointers to documentation/tutorials that cover it. Existing example queries are very helpful but many are complex. For training purposes we need a graduated set of examples, that are designed step-by-step to teach how to construct queries.

Kingsley, Wanted to thank you very much for your valuable post! Its a great introduction to making the transition from a table/Excel/spreadsheet view of data over to, as you say, /"a// //collection of RDF statements grouped by statement Predicate"/ Those of us working on the Company Data project typically come with that table orientation background. Having a "learning path" laid out transitioning to the SPARQL world is very helpful. I'm very fuzzy on basic "inheritance" here at Wikidata. For example Company->Financial Statements->Income Statement for 2016Q4->total revenue->some number * Total revenue needs the /*time period*/ attached to it (here start and end dates for the quarter); others need point-in-time measurements, e.g. as of 12/31/2016) * The total revenue needs to have an associated */currency /*attached to it. * The Income Statement for 2016Q4 needs to have a specific */accounting standard/* attached to it (for example US GAAP 2017, IFRS 2016, more at https://www.sec.gov/info/edgar/edgartaxonomies.shtml, and more outside the U.S.. The accounting standard followed in preparing the numbers must be very specific to help with concordance across different standards (especially across countries) * The company needs to have a "dominate" or "default" /*industry code*/ attached to it. WikiData might best go with 56 industries classified according to the '''International Standard Industrial Classification revision 4 (ISIC Rev. 4)'''. This is the set used by the World Input-Output tables http://www.wiod.org/home. They take data from all 28 EU countries and 15 other major countries in the world and transform it to be comparable using these industries. Its the broadest "nearly global" coverage I can find. It would be also advisable to accommodate multiple industry assignments per entity / establishment, each with the standard and year which were followed, applied from a specifically enumerated list. For example in North America data will often be available according to the most current, and highly granular 2017 NAICS system https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/ and there are concordances between versions see: https://www.census.gov/eos/www/naics/concordances/concordances.html and https://unstats.un.org/unsd/cr/registry/isic-4.asp. Looking towards the future where large amounts of company data are machine imported it would be best to preserve the original, most detailed industry codes available (such as the 6 digit NACIS code) and preserve the standard and year associated with that assigned code(s). Given the year and the detail the concordances can later be used to machine add different codes as needed. Granular users are then accommodated, and people looking to do cross country / global analysis (at the 56 industry level) are also accommodated. When I look at the above challenge I think of your prescription of how to make RDF collections easier to read. 1. Addition of annotation relations esp., the likes of rdfs:label, skos:prefLabel, skos:altLabel, schema:name, foaf:name, rdfs:comment, schema:description etc.. 2. Addition (where possible) use of relations such as foaf:depiction, schema:image etc.. Adhering to the above *leads to RDF statement collections that are easier** **to read*, without the confusing nature of the term "graph" getting in the way. At the end of the day, RDF is simply an abstract language for creating structured data using a variety of notations (RDF-Turtle, RDF-NTriples, JSON-LD, RDF-XML etc..). *It isn't a format, but sadly** **that's how it is still perceived* by most circa., 2017 (even though the initial RDF definition snafu on this front occurred around 2000). And I can't help but be intensely curious as to what happened in that 2000 initial RDF definition snafu?