Hoi, Resourcesync is unlikely to be adopted by Wikidata for adopting changes from elsewhere. If others want to share data FROM WIkidata there is no problem with providing Resourcesync.
What I do not completely understand is how its mechanism for indicating changes may be used. When it can be used to generate reports so that people can actually see the differences it could be really important to improve the quality.
The notion that we can just copy in data or change data based on an "authorised" source is problematic. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 June 2016 at 21:12, Sandra Fauconnier sandra.fauconnier@gmail.com wrote:
I have recently read an interview with Herbert Van de Sompel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Van_de_Sompel, who among others has worked on the OAI-PMH and the Memento project (for those for whom that rings a bell).
Recently his team has developed an initiative called ResourceSync http://www.openarchives.org/rs/toc, that seems to be addressing exactly this - keeping distributed databases on the web mutually up to date. It’s the closest thing I’ve ever seen that seems to address what we (and the entire interlinked web) would need in this area. I might have missed other initiatives, but this one gave me a big AHA moment!
Here’s a short video that explains the principle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ASQ4jMYytsA
In the interview I read. Herbert said that it didn’t see wide adoption yet though. I can imagine that, if the Wikimedia projects’ software would adopt this, it might have a snowball effect.
Best, Sandra
On 10 Jun 2016, at 20:43, Benjamin Good ben.mcgee.good@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Julie,
We've thought a lot about this, but not done anything formally yet. There is an example of this happening to improve the disease ontology presented in this paper [1].
Mechanically, parties interested in a particular swath of data linked to their resource could set up repeated SPARQL queries to watch for changes. Beyond that, the core mediawiki API could be used to create alerts when new discussions are started on articles or items of interest.
At some point we hope to produce a reporting site that would aggregate this kind of information in our domain (feedback and changes by the community) as well as changes by our bots and provide reports back to the primary sources and to whoever else was interested. (Maybe we will see a start on that this summer..) This hasn't become a priority yet because we haven't yet generated the community scope to make it a really valuable source of input to the original databases.
[1] http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2015/11/16/031971.full.pdf
On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Julie McMurry mcmurry.julie@gmail.com wrote:
It is great that WikiData provides a way for data to be curated in a crowd-sourced way. It would be even better if changes (especially corrections) could be communicated back to the original source so that all could benefit.
Has this been discussed previously? Considered?
Julie
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata