W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > August 2012

Re: Wikidata export in RDF

From: Denny Vrandečić <denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de>
Date: Mon, 6 Aug 2012 14:25:21 +0200
Message-ID: <CANnnRRskTTqGLazkuPZf995zQD6GQu7b4GfR5EyMJEub2ubmQg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Cc: Semantic Web mailing list <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hi Peter,

thank you for taking the time to review the draft -- this is very much
appreciated. Answers are inline.

2012/8/6 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>:
> Hi:
> The general approach appears to be acceptable.
> I would like to have some use of the base relationship in the encoding.   As
> it stands right now, there is no relationship between p:Population and
> anything in the encoding, meaning that users cannot reliably infer the
> relationship between the encoding and the base relationship.  Of course,
> human users can make guesses (perhaps by looking inside the IRIs), but this
> does not work for systems.

I understand and agree. Would the following suggestion work, i.e.
adding annotation properties as follows?

 p:Population o:hasStatementProperty s:Population .
 p:Population o:hasValueProperty v:Population .
 p:Population o:hasQualifierProperty q:Population .

Or does anyone have a better idea? If not, I will add this to the draft.

> It looks as if rdf:label is a tyop for rdfs:label.  However, I don't think
> that rdfs:label should be used here.  I think that it would be even better
> to use some other property here.  Note, in particular, that adding
> provenance should change an rdfs:label property constructed in this way.

Yes, it was a typo. Corrected.
I like to use the rdfs:label at this place (i.e. for giving a label to
the Statement instance) as it really makes a very readable rendering
in most current linked data browsers. Otherwise I am not particularly
attached to this solution.

> I would suggest using a <=0 restriction instead of an all restriction to the
> empty class for the no value SNAK, even though they have the same semantics.

I am not attached to one or the other. If no one weights in on this I
will go with your suggestion.

> I suggest not using the RDF encoding for OWL restrictions.

This comment confuses me. I do not know how else to represent the
respective OWL axioms in RDF. Are you suggesting to leave the
restrictions out of the RDF export?

> peter
> PS:  I believe that the xsd:date format is YYYY-MM-DD, not DD-MM-YYY.

You are correct. I corrected it, thanks.

Again thank you,

> On 08/06/2012 06:03 AM, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> we have created the first draft of the Wikidata export in RDF.
>> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Development/RDF>
>> I am inviting the Semantic Web and Linked Data community to a
>> discussion about it.
>> Cheers,
>> Denny

Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
Received on Monday, 6 August 2012 12:25:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:33 UTC