Hello,
Can you help me understand the scope of a Wikidata entry please?
What is this Wikidata entry for? http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q272619
Is it for the person Norman Cook and all of his aliases? Should that title be Fatboy Slim or Norman Cook? Is it ok that it has different titles in different languages?
Do there have to be separate Wikpedia pages before we can create separate Wikidata entities for the separate concepts?
In MusicBrainz there are three artists that point to the 'Norman Cook' Wikipedia page:
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/3150be04-f42f-43e0-ab5c-77965a4f7a7d http://musicbrainz.org/artist/34c63966-445c-4613-afe1-4f0e1e53ae9a http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ba81eb4a-0c89-489f-9982-0154b8083a28
Should they all be pointing at the same Wikidata entry too?
Is it ok that there is only a single MusicBrainz identifier in Wikidata? How is that identifier chosen?
The problem that we are experiencing is that our Triplestore is merging all these concepts together into a single entity and I am trying to work out where to break the equivalence, or if it is even a problem.
Thanks!
nick.
----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
Hi Nicholas,
a) Yes, it is about the person and the aliases together. As a general rule, it's one article per person, not per name.
b) Different names is a quirk of the Wikipedia background - these default to the title of the Wikipedia article on that person, and there's no agreement on whether to put the article under the person or the more famous pseudonym.
c) At the moment, yes, there would need to be separate Wikipedia pages. I think for the specific case of people with pseudonyms, Wikidata is likely to continue on a "one entity" rule even if we relax the Wikipedia requirement.
d) I think the initial assumption was that there was a 1=1 match, but if there are multiple musicbrainz id's representing facets of the same entity, then Wikidata will support adding several.
Andrew.
On 31 July 2013 12:45, Nicholas Humfrey nicholas.humfrey@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Hello,
Can you help me understand the scope of a Wikidata entry please?
What is this Wikidata entry for? http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q272619
Is it for the person Norman Cook and all of his aliases? Should that title be Fatboy Slim or Norman Cook? Is it ok that it has different titles in different languages?
Do there have to be separate Wikpedia pages before we can create separate Wikidata entities for the separate concepts?
In MusicBrainz there are three artists that point to the 'Norman Cook' Wikipedia page:
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/3150be04-f42f-43e0-ab5c-77965a4f7a7d http://musicbrainz.org/artist/34c63966-445c-4613-afe1-4f0e1e53ae9a http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ba81eb4a-0c89-489f-9982-0154b8083a28
Should they all be pointing at the same Wikidata entry too?
Is it ok that there is only a single MusicBrainz identifier in Wikidata? How is that identifier chosen?
The problem that we are experiencing is that our Triplestore is merging all these concepts together into a single entity and I am trying to work out where to break the equivalence, or if it is even a problem.
Thanks!
nick.
http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
That is great, thanks for the clarification Andrew.
I guess as a rule of thumb, the label of the entry in Wikipedia should match label of the linked entry in MusicBrainz.
nick.
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk Date: Wednesday, 31 July 2013 12:59 To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Nicholas Humfrey nicholas.humfrey@bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Scope of a Wikidata entry
Hi Nicholas,
a) Yes, it is about the person and the aliases together. As a general rule, it's one article per person, not per name.
b) Different names is a quirk of the Wikipedia background - these default to the title of the Wikipedia article on that person, and there's no agreement on whether to put the article under the person or the more famous pseudonym.
c) At the moment, yes, there would need to be separate Wikipedia pages. I think for the specific case of people with pseudonyms, Wikidata is likely to continue on a "one entity" rule even if we relax the Wikipedia requirement.
d) I think the initial assumption was that there was a 1=1 match, but if there are multiple musicbrainz id's representing facets of the same entity, then Wikidata will support adding several.
Andrew.
On 31 July 2013 12:45, Nicholas Humfrey nicholas.humfrey@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Hello,
Can you help me understand the scope of a Wikidata entry please?
What is this Wikidata entry for? http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q272619
Is it for the person Norman Cook and all of his aliases? Should that title be Fatboy Slim or Norman Cook? Is it ok that it has different titles in different languages?
Do there have to be separate Wikpedia pages before we can create separate Wikidata entities for the separate concepts?
In MusicBrainz there are three artists that point to the 'Norman Cook' Wikipedia page:
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/3150be04-f42f-43e0-ab5c-77965a4f7a7d http://musicbrainz.org/artist/34c63966-445c-4613-afe1-4f0e1e53ae9a http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ba81eb4a-0c89-489f-9982-0154b8083a28
Should they all be pointing at the same Wikidata entry too?
Is it ok that there is only a single MusicBrainz identifier in Wikidata? How is that identifier chosen?
The problem that we are experiencing is that our Triplestore is merging all these concepts together into a single entity and I am trying to work out where to break the equivalence, or if it is even a problem.
Thanks!
nick.
http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
----------------------------- http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this. -----------------------------
Freebase does the same as Wikidata -- and actually has five different MusicBrainz IDs associated https://www.freebase.com/m/01v_pj6?props=&lang=en&filter=%2Fcommon%2...
It's worth noting however that this "one person, one entry" view isn't universal. Library cataloging practice is to treat pseudonyms separately, in the same way that you've already discovered MusicBrainz does. It's worth keeping this in mind when interacting with other modeling communities.
Tom
On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Nicholas Humfrey < nicholas.humfrey@bbc.co.uk> wrote:
That is great, thanks for the clarification Andrew.
I guess as a rule of thumb, the label of the entry in Wikipedia should match label of the linked entry in MusicBrainz.
nick.
-----Original Message----- From: Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk Date: Wednesday, 31 July 2013 12:59 To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: Nicholas Humfrey nicholas.humfrey@bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Scope of a Wikidata entry
Hi Nicholas,
a) Yes, it is about the person and the aliases together. As a general rule, it's one article per person, not per name.
b) Different names is a quirk of the Wikipedia background - these default to the title of the Wikipedia article on that person, and there's no agreement on whether to put the article under the person or the more famous pseudonym.
c) At the moment, yes, there would need to be separate Wikipedia pages. I think for the specific case of people with pseudonyms, Wikidata is likely to continue on a "one entity" rule even if we relax the Wikipedia requirement.
d) I think the initial assumption was that there was a 1=1 match, but if there are multiple musicbrainz id's representing facets of the same entity, then Wikidata will support adding several.
Andrew.
On 31 July 2013 12:45, Nicholas Humfrey nicholas.humfrey@bbc.co.uk wrote:
Hello,
Can you help me understand the scope of a Wikidata entry please?
What is this Wikidata entry for? http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q272619
Is it for the person Norman Cook and all of his aliases? Should that title be Fatboy Slim or Norman Cook? Is it ok that it has different titles in different languages?
Do there have to be separate Wikpedia pages before we can create separate Wikidata entities for the separate concepts?
In MusicBrainz there are three artists that point to the 'Norman Cook' Wikipedia page:
http://musicbrainz.org/artist/3150be04-f42f-43e0-ab5c-77965a4f7a7d http://musicbrainz.org/artist/34c63966-445c-4613-afe1-4f0e1e53ae9a http://musicbrainz.org/artist/ba81eb4a-0c89-489f-9982-0154b8083a28
Should they all be pointing at the same Wikidata entry too?
Is it ok that there is only a single MusicBrainz identifier in Wikidata? How is that identifier chosen?
The problem that we are experiencing is that our Triplestore is merging all these concepts together into a single entity and I am trying to work out where to break the equivalence, or if it is even a problem.
Thanks!
nick.
http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
http://www.bbc.co.uk This e-mail (and any attachments) is confidential and may contain personal views which are not the views of the BBC unless specifically stated. If you have received it in error, please delete it from your system. Do not use, copy or disclose the information in any way nor act in reliance on it and notify the sender immediately. Please note that the BBC monitors e-mails sent or received. Further communication will signify your consent to this.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
2013/7/31 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
Hi Nicholas,
a) Yes, it is about the person and the aliases together. As a general rule, it's one article per person, not per name.
b) Different names is a quirk of the Wikipedia background - these default to the title of the Wikipedia article on that person, and there's no agreement on whether to put the article under the person or the more famous pseudonym.
FYI, there is now a property for pseudonyms ( http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P742 ).
d) I think the initial assumption was that there was a 1=1 match, but if there are multiple musicbrainz id's representing facets of the same entity, then Wikidata will support adding several.
It is possible to put several IDs coming from the same database. Actually, I'm trying to do this with multiple VIAF codes referring to the same author, and it could also become a "feedback" to the original database.
Yes, I think multiple identities attached to a single wikidata entity is the way to go forward. ~We talked about this briefly at Wikimania on Friday and the consensus was "still a bit unclear" ;-)
Once qualifiers are properly up and running we might be able to mark them as "preferred" or "main" relation vs. secondary identifiers (the main VIAF cluster vs the isolated entries, for example)
A.
On Sunday, 11 August 2013, Luca Martinelli wrote:
2013/7/31 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk javascript:;>:
Hi Nicholas,
a) Yes, it is about the person and the aliases together. As a general rule, it's one article per person, not per name.
b) Different names is a quirk of the Wikipedia background - these default to the title of the Wikipedia article on that person, and there's no agreement on whether to put the article under the person or the more famous pseudonym.
FYI, there is now a property for pseudonyms ( http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P742 ).
d) I think the initial assumption was that there was a 1=1 match, but if there are multiple musicbrainz id's representing facets of the same entity, then Wikidata will support adding several.
It is possible to put several IDs coming from the same database. Actually, I'm trying to do this with multiple VIAF codes referring to the same author, and it could also become a "feedback" to the original database.
-- Luca "Sannita" Martinelli http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 1:09 AM, Luca Martinelli martinelliluca@gmail.comwrote:
2013/7/31 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
Hi Nicholas,
a) Yes, it is about the person and the aliases together. As a general rule, it's one article per person, not per name.
b) Different names is a quirk of the Wikipedia background - these default to the title of the Wikipedia article on that person, and there's no agreement on whether to put the article under the person or the more famous pseudonym.
FYI, there is now a property for pseudonyms ( http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P742 ).
Is it intentional to restrict the definition to personal pseudonyms? That doesn't cover all uses of them For example, there are house pseudonyms used by publishing houses which are associated with a series and the publishing house contracts with writers to write effectively anonymously (although it's often known who they are).
Another example of a relatively well known collective pseudonym is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki There's a whole category of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_pseudonyms
Tom
Il giorno 12/ago/2013 05:26, "Tom Morris" tfmorris@gmail.com ha scritto:
Is it intentional to restrict the definition to personal pseudonyms?
That doesn't cover all uses of them For example, there are house pseudonyms used by publishing houses which are associated with a series and the publishing house contracts with writers to write effectively anonymously (although it's often known who they are).
Another example of a relatively well known collective pseudonym is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki There's a whole category of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_pseudonyms
Tom
Well, quite intentional. I am perfectly aware that collective pseudonyms exist: one of the most important Italian writer is in fact a collective of writers, that started as "Luther Blissett", and that is now known as "Wu Ming".
However the property does not - was not intended to - address those articles. It is reserved, so to say, to actors or writers or musicians who have a stage name and a real name, like Nicholas Cage or P.Diddy, in order to treat their pseudonym as a data.
Luca "Sannita"
Cases like this - where the pseudonym is a (collective) entity in itself - would seem to be a good case for "member of" relationships - Henri Cartan [is a member of] Nicholas Bourbaki as John Lennon [is a member of] the Beatles.
A free-text pseudonym for each of the Bourbaki authors would mean there's no easy way to connect them to that other element in future.
Andrew.
On Monday, 12 August 2013, Tom Morris wrote:
Is it intentional to restrict the definition to personal pseudonyms? That doesn't cover all uses of them For example, there are house pseudonyms used by publishing houses which are associated with a series and the publishing house contracts with writers to write effectively anonymously (although it's often known who they are).
Another example of a relatively well known collective pseudonym is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki There's a whole category of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_pseudonyms
Tom
Hoi, When an item is a member of a list, the item is likely to be written differently dependent on the language and script. When there is a "free-text" referral, it loses its flexibility ... eg 靈高史達 is a member of the Beatles <grin> obviously </grin> Thanks, Gerard
On 12 August 2013 11:44, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Cases like this - where the pseudonym is a (collective) entity in itself - would seem to be a good case for "member of" relationships - Henri Cartan [is a member of] Nicholas Bourbaki as John Lennon [is a member of] the Beatles.
A free-text pseudonym for each of the Bourbaki authors would mean there's no easy way to connect them to that other element in future.
Andrew.
On Monday, 12 August 2013, Tom Morris wrote:
Is it intentional to restrict the definition to personal pseudonyms? That doesn't cover all uses of them For example, there are house pseudonyms used by publishing houses which are associated with a series and the publishing house contracts with writers to write effectively anonymously (although it's often known who they are).
Another example of a relatively well known collective pseudonym is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki There's a whole category of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_pseudonyms
Tom
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 5:44 AM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.ukwrote:
On Monday, 12 August 2013, Tom Morris wrote:
Is it intentional to restrict the definition to personal pseudonyms? That doesn't cover all uses of them For example, there are house pseudonyms used by publishing houses which are associated with a series and the publishing house contracts with writers to write effectively anonymously (although it's often known who they are).
Another example of a relatively well known collective pseudonym is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicolas_Bourbaki There's a whole category of them here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Collective_pseudonyms
Cases like this - where the pseudonym is a (collective) entity in itself - would seem to be a good case for "member of" relationships - Henri Cartan [is a member of] Nicholas Bourbaki as John Lennon [is a member of] the Beatles.
A free-text pseudonym for each of the Bourbaki authors would mean there's no easy way to connect them to that other element in future.
That seems reasonable. Perhaps it would be worthwhile updating the property description for pseudonym to point people in the right direction so they don't make that mistake.
Tom