User talk:JakobVoss

Jump to navigation Jump to search

About this board

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:JakobVoss/Archive 1 on 2016-03-01.

VIGNERON (talkcontribs)

Hi,

(L2129) is the only lexeme using catalog code (P528) and I must say the structure is a bit weird (a dictionary is not really a catalog and the lemma is definitely not a number).

I'm not sure what would be the best but I see that 379 lexemes are using described by source (P1343) for more or less the same thing.

JakobVoss (talkcontribs)
VIGNERON (talkcontribs)

Thank you for changing it.

We have a great quantity of lexemes and now that we have query too, I'd like to improve the quality too ;)

Reply to "sí?"
Mfchris84 (talkcontribs)

Hello Jakob, thanks for creating the mix'n'match-list of author-related notations in RVK to Wikidata Concepts. I am a bit confused, about RVK and whether it's really a 1:1 mapping. Many authors have in RVK at least two entries ("works", "literature about" - e.g. Kant) or three entries ("collection", "work", "lit. about" - e.g. Mortier, Erwin)

If I understand RVK, the first notation has no hierarchical aspect; Maybe we should match all RVK entries to the corresponding author and add a qualifier e.g. of (P642) to edited volume (Q1711593), work (Q386724) or secondary literature (Q18891569)? Thank you, --Mfchris84 (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

JakobVoss (talkcontribs)

RVK is a hierarchy so only the top most matching RVK classes matter. For example the RVK notation for Kant is "BF 4045 - BF 4046". Just ignore the entries below! Independent from that some famous authors occur at multiple places, e.g. Kant also has "CF 5000 - CF 5017". Apart from that just think of RVK notations as identifiers. I don't understand your question about qualifiers and see no need to use other qualifiers but mapping relation type (P4390) for mapping topics (not authors).

Mfchris84 (talkcontribs)

Form a librarians view its in the beginning a bit confusing, to think notations as external identifiers. I see you have already removed RVK claims in bibliographic items on Wikidata. Maybe it will be good to have clarification on wikidata about the usage of library classification systems. Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) or Library of Congress Classification (P1149) are still used as classification of bibliographic items.

JakobVoss (talkcontribs)

Yes, DDC and LCC may be changed later but I did not want to start a revolution. By now we have Regensburg Classification (P1150) and Basisklassifikation (P5748) used as identifiers and the other classification properties uncontrolled. It will be easier to migrate all classification from use for bibliographic items to use for mapping each classification with Wikidata items when there will be more mappings available.

Reply to "Authors in RVK"

A SPARQL query gives all identifier properties with their datatype and class.

2
77.179.33.91 (talkcontribs)
JakobVoss (talkcontribs)
Reply to "A SPARQL query gives all identifier properties with their datatype and class."

News from an old friend of vocabularies

1
Bvatant (talkcontribs)

Hello Jakob

After 3 years of retirement, I'm coming back to linked data land, through genealogy (long story).

I've just posted a request to be a property creator. Hope you will support this proposal :-)

Cheers,

Bernard Vatant

Reply to "News from an old friend of vocabularies"
Nolanus (talkcontribs)

Hallo, könntest du mir bitte helfen und die Seiten Q7979167 und Q10396904 zusammenführen? Wedge filter ist Šedý klín im tschechischen. Ich kenne mich hier nicht so gut aus. Danke --~~~~

JakobVoss (talkcontribs)

Ist erledigt. Kannst du noch eine Deutsche Bezeichnung ergänzen?

Nolanus (talkcontribs)

Danke! Ich kenne mich nicht so gut aus in diesem Gebiet, aber habe ich nach meinem Wissen gemacht.

Nolanus (talkcontribs)

BTW, Bezeichnung auf deutsch ist richtig? ich dachte, es sollte auf Englisch sein.

Reply to "Wedge filter"

Structured Data Newsletter - Research link fix

1
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)

Greetings,

The newsletter omitted two interwiki prefixes, breaking the links on non-meta wikis as you might see above. Here are the correct links:

  1. m:Research:Curation workflows on Wikimedia Commons—a project that seeks to understand the current workflows of Commons contributors who curate media (categorize it, delete it, link to it from other projects, etc.).
  2. m:Research:Technical needs of external re-users of Commons media—soliciting feedback from individuals and organizations that re-use Commons content outside of Wikimedia projects, in order to understand their current painpoints and unmet needs.

My apologies, I hope you find the corrected links helpful.

- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply to "Structured Data Newsletter - Research link fix"

Structured Data on Commons Newsletter - Summer 2018

1
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter and contribute to the next issue. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
  • Our dedicated IRC channel: wikimedia-commons-sd webchat
  • Since our last newsletter, the Structured Data team has moved into designing and building prototypes for various features. The use of multilingual captions in the UploadWizard and on the file page has been researched, designed, discussed, and built out for use. Behind the scenes, back-end work on search is taking place and designs are being drawn up for the front-end. There will soon be specifications published for the use of the first Wikidata property on Commons, "Depicts," and a prototype is to be released to go along with that.
Things to do / input and feedback requests
Discussions held
Wikimania 2018
Partners and allies
Research

Two research projects about Wikimedia Commons are currently ongoing, or in the process of being finished:

  1. Research:Curation workflows on Wikimedia Commons—a project that seeks to understand the current workflows of Commons contributors who curate media (categorize it, delete it, link to it from other projects, etc.).
  2. Research:Technical needs of external re-users of Commons media—soliciting feedback from individuals and organizations that re-use Commons content outside of Wikimedia projects, in order to understand their current painpoints and unmet needs.
Development
  • Prototypes will be available for Depicts soon.
Stay up to date!

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 21:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Reply to "Structured Data on Commons Newsletter - Summer 2018"
Lymantria (talkcontribs)
JakobVoss (talkcontribs)

Sorry, just copied the ping-list on the property discussion!

Lymantria (talkcontribs)

OK, things happen.

JakobVoss (talkcontribs)

What do you think about a required delay before property creation to mark them as "ready" for at least one or two days?

Lymantria (talkcontribs)

I don't think that is beneficial. It is not about rules, it is about seeing that discussions are properly ended. Mark as ready I personally see as annoying, because in some cases I do not consider it ready despite of the marking and the other way around. What happened yesterday is that I took the decision more quickly than I am used to and while being extremely busy IRL. Besides, I don't think that discussions on changing scope belong to a property proposal. In my opinion changing scope changes the proposal. You correctly accompanied your opinion with a oppose vote, and was the only one so. The proposer clearly did not support change of his proposal. That is what it is - I thought. What I intended is that discussion about a broader scope would be at the property talk page. A discussion there could lead to a change of scope. Or, the broader property would be proposed in a new proposal (what I would think to be the more elegant solution).

JakobVoss (talkcontribs)

Ok thanks for your comment, I fully understand. I hesitate to create properties, but more waiting or adding another rule will not help in the general case. Discussions need to be evaluated case by case. I think that once a property exists, it is much harder to change than before creation, but nevermind!

Lymantria (talkcontribs)

I realize I should have given it more time.

Reply to "Ping"
Jura1 (talkcontribs)

In case you haven't noticed the edit note, properties are not to be changed while being listed for deletion.

JakobVoss (talkcontribs)

By pointing to rules and procedures you give the impression of not being interested in consensus and common understanding. Sure this impression is wrong but we should better try to make clear that people and exchange of arguments value more than formalism.

Jura1 (talkcontribs)

I do value your contribution and did read your argument for an "api property". I suppose you did understand that it somehow contradicted the proposal as such. I think you were right to list the property for deletion if you didn't think there was a consensus for its creation in the present form.

JakobVoss (talkcontribs)

Ok, I wish there would have been another way. I better have a break at least until tomorrow. What do you think about having a required delay of property proposals to be in "ready" state before they can be created, to better show whether there is a consensus? There still could be edit wars whether the property is ready or not but this might be less confrontative than a deletion process.

Reply to "Property for deletion process"
VIGNERON (talkcontribs)

Hi,

The item A Dictionary of Māori Computer Related Terms (Q54678767) is quite empty and seems to be about the works. Could you create items for the editions per Wikidata:WikiProject Books model ? at least for the second edition you used on Lexeme:L2222 (and consequently, we can remove the qualifiers edition number (P393) and publication date (P577) on L2222).

And is the second edition the one at this URL http://www.taiuru.maori.nz/publicationslib/Dictionary-of-Computer-Related-Terms-Edition-2.pdf ? If so, mamati seems to be at page 78 not 79 ;)

JakobVoss (talkcontribs)

Thanks! Opinions differ when to create an item for a book edition and when to use a work item with qualifiers. In this case you are right to better add editions, I'll do so.

Reply to "Q54678767"