Hi Wikidata community,
Kadaster, the Dutch cadastre agency is publishing its base registries as Linked Open Data. This means that we have minted unique identifiers for all buildings, roads, etc in the Netherlands.
Wikidata currently includes links to the Kadaster, but these do not point to the proper IRIs. For example, Dutch municipalities in Wikidata currently link to an HTML viewer of Kadaster [1], but they should point to our dereferenceable IRI [2].
Low-hanging fruit seems to be to update the Kadaster links for all Dutch municipalities. What's the best way to go about this? Can we make these corrections ourselves / what is the procedure for editing?
--- Cheers!, Wouter.
[1] https://bagviewer.kadaster.nl/lvbag/bag-viewer/index.html#? objectId=3560&detailsObjectId=3560
[2] http://brt.basisregistraties.overheid.nl/top10nl/id/plaats/129612200
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Wouter Beek wouter@triply.cc wrote:
Wikidata currently includes links to the Kadaster, but these do not point to the proper IRIs. For example, Dutch municipalities in Wikidata currently link to an HTML viewer of Kadaster [1], but they should point to our dereferenceable IRI [2].
It can have both... (if I understand correctly what you want)... see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P662
It has "formatter URL" (P1630) for the HTML and "RDF URI template" (P1921) for the IRI....
Low-hanging fruit seems to be to update the Kadaster links for all Dutch municipalities. What's the best way to go about this? Can we make these corrections ourselves / what is the procedure for editing?
So, I would say, just add the RDF links...
Egon
Just to add to Egon's comment IRI's can also be added to Wikidata using the Property P2888 - Exact Match.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:14 PM, Egon Willighagen < egon.willighagen@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 4:09 PM, Wouter Beek wouter@triply.cc wrote:
Wikidata currently includes links to the Kadaster, but these do not
point to
the proper IRIs. For example, Dutch municipalities in Wikidata currently link to an HTML viewer of Kadaster [1], but they should point to our dereferenceable IRI [2].
It can have both... (if I understand correctly what you want)... see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P662
It has "formatter URL" (P1630) for the HTML and "RDF URI template" (P1921) for the IRI....
Low-hanging fruit seems to be to update the Kadaster links for all Dutch municipalities. What's the best way to go about this? Can we make these corrections ourselves / what is the procedure for editing?
So, I would say, just add the RDF links...
Egon
-- E.L. Willighagen Department of Bioinformatics - BiGCaT Maastricht University (http://www.bigcat.unimaas.nl/) Homepage: http://egonw.github.com/ LinkedIn: http://se.linkedin.com/in/egonw Blog: http://chem-bla-ics.blogspot.com/ PubList: http://www.citeulike.org/user/egonw/tag/papers ORCID: 0000-0001-7542-0286 ImpactStory: https://impactstory.org/u/egonwillighagen
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 17 May 2017 at 16:28, Andra Waagmeester andra@micelio.be wrote:
Just to add to Egon's comment IRI's can also be added to Wikidata using the Property P2888 - Exact Match.
I wouldn't advise doing this when we already have the ID in a specific property.
Hi,
Thanks to Egon I now understand that I can change the RDF URI template. The old template was pointing to the Linked Data browser (i.e., HTML documents). I've changed this to the URI template of the identifiers for Dutch municipalities.
When I visit one of the Dutch municipalities, it still has the old URI value for the property (P981). Will the new template that I have added now be used in future scrapes? IOW: how to update the instances?
--- Cheers!, Wouter.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 17 May 2017 at 16:28, Andra Waagmeester andra@micelio.be wrote:
Just to add to Egon's comment IRI's can also be added to Wikidata using the Property P2888 - Exact Match.
I wouldn't advise doing this when we already have the ID in a specific property.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 17 May 2017 at 17:06, Wouter Beek wouter@triply.cc wrote:
The old template was pointing to the Linked Data browser (i.e., HTML documents). I've changed this to the URI template of the identifiers for Dutch municipalities.
Thank you.
When I visit one of the Dutch municipalities, it still has the old URI value for the property (P981). Will the new template that I have added now be used in future scrapes? IOW: how to update the instances?
Purge the page, per:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purge#Purge_request_to_server
(that's advice for Wikipedia, but the principles are the same)
Also, please give specific URLs for examples, not "one of the...".
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 6:14 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Purge the page, per:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Purge#Purge_request_to_server(that's advice for Wikipedia, but the principles are the same)
Also, please give specific URLs for examples, not "one of the...".
Let me indeed be a bit more specific...
For instance the Dutch municipality of Apeldoorn (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3018561) should refer to the Kadaster resource IRI and not to a document IRI (as is currently the case).
Specifically, the value of property "BAG-code for Dutch locations" (P981) should be changed for each Dutch municipality. I've edited P981's property "RDF URI template" (P1921) to the correct IRI template, but this template is not yet used for the Dutch municipality instances (also not after purging the cache).
There is also a "formatter URL" property (P1630). Maybe that conflicts with the IRI template that I have edited? Or maybe it takes precedence over the RDF URI?
--- Cheers, Wouter.
On 17 May 2017 at 17:32, Wouter Beek wouter@triply.cc wrote:
For instance the Dutch municipality of Apeldoorn (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3018561) should refer to the Kadaster resource IRI and not to a document IRI (as is currently the case).
There is also a "formatter URL" property (P1630). Maybe that conflicts with the IRI template that I have edited? Or maybe it takes precedence over the RDF URI?
The /human-facing/ link on the page cited does indeed use the human-friendly P1630.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 17 May 2017 at 16:28, Andra Waagmeester andra@micelio.be wrote:
Just to add to Egon's comment IRI's can also be added to Wikidata using
the
Property P2888 - Exact Match.
I wouldn't advise doing this when we already have the ID in a specific property.
The ID usually points to human readable website, whereas in RDF the items use IRI to distinguish between concepts. An IRI points to the related node in the linked data cloud. In the context of being able to link with external (RDF) datasets, using the ID from a specific property does not work.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 17 May 2017 at 20:20, Andra Waagmeester andra@micelio.be wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 17 May 2017 at 16:28, Andra Waagmeester andra@micelio.be wrote:
Just to add to Egon's comment IRI's can also be added to Wikidata using the Property P2888 - Exact Match.
I wouldn't advise doing this when we already have the ID in a specific property.
The ID usually points to human readable website, whereas in RDF the items use IRI to distinguish between concepts. An IRI points to the related node in the linked data cloud. In the context of being able to link with external (RDF) datasets, using the ID from a specific property does not work.
That's what we have P1921 for.
Using P1921 will not always work. Especially in the case where resources use opaque identifiers either as internal identifiers and/or IRI's, making the transformation between the two impossible.
Also having to rely on P1921 to run for example federated queries leads to complex query patterns. You always have to include an additional step where the IRIs are calculated on the fly.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 12:51 AM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 17 May 2017 at 20:20, Andra Waagmeester andra@micelio.be wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:52 PM, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk
wrote:
On 17 May 2017 at 16:28, Andra Waagmeester andra@micelio.be wrote:
Just to add to Egon's comment IRI's can also be added to Wikidata
using
the Property P2888 - Exact Match.
I wouldn't advise doing this when we already have the ID in a specific property.
The ID usually points to human readable website, whereas in RDF the items use IRI to distinguish between concepts. An IRI points to the related
node
in the linked data cloud. In the context of being able to link with external (RDF) datasets, using the ID from a specific property does not work.
That's what we have P1921 for.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 18 May 2017 at 10:13, Andra Waagmeester andra@micelio.be wrote:
Using P1921 will not always work. Especially in the case where resources use opaque identifiers either as internal identifiers and/or IRI's, making the transformation between the two impossible.
Also having to rely on P1921 to run for example federated queries leads to complex query patterns. You always have to include an additional step where the IRIs are calculated on the fly.
Then all you have to do is persuade the community to drop the use of external IDs and formatter URLs and move to storing full URIs.
I'm ambivalent as to which is the ideal solution; but using both, inconsistently, and on an arbitrary basis, is certainly not it.
On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
I'm ambivalent as to which is the ideal solution; but using both, inconsistently, and on an arbitrary basis, is certainly not it.
I agree, but we're in a mixed world right now... semantic web is being picked up, and I think we must take advantage of this (IRIs are identifiers too), but many databases are not semantic and have old fashion IDs. (As maintainer of an ID mapping system called BridgeDb, this is my daily work: dealing with two types of identifiers from two related but different worlds...)
I absolutely agree ideally we would have one solution, and while on Wikidata we might try that community consensus, I am not sure I see how you want to achieve that beyond Wikidata at this moment?
Egon
On 19 May 2017 at 11:49, Egon Willighagen egon.willighagen@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure I see how you want to achieve that beyond Wikidata at this moment?
My comment referred only to Wikidata.
On Sat, May 20, 2017 at 6:47 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 19 May 2017 at 11:49, Egon Willighagen egon.willighagen@gmail.com wrote:
I am not sure I see how you want to achieve that beyond Wikidata at this moment?
My comment referred only to Wikidata.
Then I think that we were not talking about the same things... what I meant is, restricting myself to chemical databases, ChEBI and ChemSpider have old fashion identifiers and IRIs (based on those identifiers), but HMDB, for example, does not. That's outside Wikidata's control, so Wikidata has to accept both types of identifiers. Right?
Egon
On 17 May 2017 at 15:14, Egon Willighagen egon.willighagen@gmail.com wrote:
It can have both... (if I understand correctly what you want)... see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P662
It has "formatter URL" (P1630) for the HTML and "RDF URI template" (P1921) for the IRI....
I've done this for P981 ("BAG-code for Dutch locations"):
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P981
as both P1921 and a secondary value for P1630.
On 17 May 2017 at 15:09, Wouter Beek wouter@triply.cc wrote:
Kadaster, the Dutch cadastre agency is publishing its base registries as Linked Open Data.
Yay! \o/
This means that we have minted unique identifiers for all buildings, roads, etc in the Netherlands.
Wikidata currently includes links to the Kadaster, but these do not point to the proper IRIs. For example, Dutch municipalities in Wikidata currently link to an HTML viewer of Kadaster [1], but they should point to our dereferenceable IRI [2].
Other's have answered this, but I would also urge you to import Wikidata IDs, and to show them on your pages, like [2].
[2] http://brt.basisregistraties.overheid.nl/top10nl/id/plaats/129612200
Hi Andy,
Thank you for the useful feedback. I'm trying to understand what's the best way for us to link our LOD activities to Wikidata's. Your comments (and also Egon's BTW) are thus much appreciated.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Other's have answered this, but I would also urge you to import Wikidata IDs, and to show them on your pages, like [2].
That's a good idea. That way a LOD agent can traverse from Kadaster to Wikidata (in addition to the other way round). What's the best practice for doing this on our end? Should we create a linkset with statements of the form [1] or are there other/better approaches?
[1] <KADASTER-URI> owl:sameAs <WIKIDATA-URI>
--- Cheers, Wouter.
Hi Andy,
Thank you for the useful feedback. I'm trying to understand what's the best way for us to link our LOD activities to Wikidata's. Your comments (and also Egon's BTW) are thus much appreciated.
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 5:55 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
Other's have answered this, but I would also urge you to import Wikidata IDs, and to show them on your pages, like [2].
That's a good idea. That way a LOD agent can traverse from Kadaster to Wikidata (in addition to the other way round). What's the best practice for doing this on our end? Should we create a linkset with statements of the form [1] or are there other/better approaches?
[1] <KADASTER-URI> owl:sameAs <WIKIDATA-URI>
--- Cheers, Wouter.