User talk:Jdforrester

Jump to: navigation, search

About this board

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2015.

Previous discussion was archived at User talk:Jdforrester/Archive 1 on 2015-11-09.

Andrew Gray (talkcontribs)

Hi James,

I've been wondering what to do with Member of Parliament for Pudsey (Q16707840). As far as I can see you created this as an example of what could be done with the officeholder property. However, we've since gone down a different route for MPs (with constituency as a qualifier rather than subdividing the item). As far as I can see no others like this were ever created, and the only two items using it also have the same information expressed in a more standard way. Would you object if I listed it for deletion once I've cleaned those up? I normally would leave surplus items like this be, but I think it might cause confusion if we kept it around despite not using this approach to modelling the data.

Jdforrester (talkcontribs)

Hmm.

The problem with that modelling is that it makes it impossible to represent the successor/predecessor-for-each-part-of-the-constituency issue when constituencies change. For example, representing that George Cunningham for Islington South West mostly-ish "retained" his seat when it became Islington South and Finsbury, but that at the same time he replaced Ronald Brown (as MP for Shoreditch and Finsbury). It also makes events related to the holding (e.g. appointment to the Manor of Northstead, or successful prosecution rending one ineligible); I'd imagined that we might want to represent the "caused the termination of" link from office to office or case to office.

My aspiration with having items for the office was to represent this richness, but as you say I never undertook the full-scale implementation. At the time it wasn't possible to attach geoshapes to claims, so some of the value was not open to us. We could delete it, or we could choose to have these as parallel modelling, though that seems messy.

What do you think?

Andrew Gray (talkcontribs)

I've been wondering about that. My long-term plan is to express a before-after relationship between the constituencies themselves - so Shoreditch and Finsbury replaced by Islington South and Finsbury [and somewhere else]. So a query could say "find the seat, find the seat it replaced, find the holder(s) of that seat in the previous Parliament".

This of course needs suitable data at constituency level. At the moment we have one item for every named seat, but they're a bit confusing because many seats had two or three instances under the same title (eg East Surrey, 1832-1885 and 1918-date) - ideally we'd have two separate items for those with separate start/end dates, separate replaces/replaced, etc. I'm getting close to importing all the date/constituency pairs from Historic Hansard, and once those are in, manually splitting up the constituencies will become a necessary next step.At that point adding in some kind of replaces/replaced link will be a natural step (as will shapefiles, if we can get them)

In terms of termination causes, this is something I do also want to do more with - at the moment we mostly use "resigned", "died", "was kicked out", but it could easily be extended to subdivide these further.

Would this approach cover your intended uses?

Jdforrester (talkcontribs)

Plausibly. There's the question of whether it'd be reasonably possible to execute any such query.

For example:

Given an institution A, with a series of head quarters locations Bn, can you get a list of MPs Mn who've represented the constituency in which the institution has resided?

(Or more likely, people with residences, but that's also less likely to be recorded.)

This would be

  • A <predicate> Bn; Bn <geosearch> Cn (historic constituencies); Cn <reverse predicate?> Mn with your model, or
  • A <predicate> Bn; Bn <geosearch> Cn (historic constituencies); Cn <predicate> Dn (offices of constituency holders); Dn <predicate> Mn with mine.

There's also the parallel MPs for pre-Reform constituencies, of course. :-)

Yeah, this could reasonably work, I think. Of course there's a lot of data filling in to do; George Galloway is a beautifully rendered example to be starting with. Nice work. :-)

Reply to "MP items"

Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey

1
MediaWiki message delivery (talkcontribs)

(That message in other languages: العربية • ‎bosanski • ‎català • ‎Deutsch • ‎Esperanto • ‎français • ‎עברית • ‎polski • ‎português • ‎português do Brasil • ‎русский • ‎اردو • ‎中文 – ‎translate that message)

Hello!

Like some other community members, you are using Flow.

An increasing number of communities now use Flow or are considering it. Although Flow itself is not scheduled for major development during 2016 fiscal year, the Collaboration Team remains interested in the project and in providing an improved system for structured discussions.

You can help us make decisions about the way forward in this area by sharing your thoughts about Flow — what works, doesn't work or should be improved?

Please fill out this survey (available in multiple languages), which is administered by a third-party service. It will not require an email or your username. See our privacy statement.

Thanks for your ideas and opinions about Flow!

Trizek (WMF), on behalf of the Collaboration team, 11:56, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Reply to "Please take part in the Flow satisfaction survey"
Danrok (talkcontribs)

As far as I can see the name of the Czech Republic is still Czech Republic. For example, "must still win cabinet approval before the foreign ministry can lodge the name with the United Nations and it becomes the country’s official short name" source: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/15/czech-republic-czechia-new-name

All we know is that the name change has parliament approval, but that is not the end of the process.

Jdforrester (talkcontribs)

Hey, just seen this, sorry for slow reply.

I don't agree with you reasoning, and I think it was misleading then (it was a foregone conclusion that the Cabinet would approve it; the President had said three years ago that the change should happen).

More relevantly, it is flatly wrong now (unless you're seriously claiming that until the next meeting on UNGEGN in September it isn't 'true', and that the elected government of the people of Czechia do not have the right to determine their own name).

Can you please self-revert?

Reply to "Czech Republic"
There are no older topics