Topic on Extension talk:WikibaseLexeme/RDF mapping

WDQS data differences

6
Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talkcontribs)

I’m curious which differences Stas will want to introduce for WDQS? :)

I would prefer if we could keep the a wikibase:Lexeme (:Form, :Sense) triples (though we could perhaps drop the redundant ontolex: versions) – the fact that we drop a wikibase:Item is occasionally inconvenient for queries, since it leaves you with no obvious generic way to select “any item”.

And similar to how we drop schema:name and skos:prefLabel for items (redundant with rdfs:label), perhaps we’ll drop one part of the wikibase:lemma/rdfs:label, ontolex:representation/rdfs:label, and skos:definition/rdfs:label pairs? Though I’m not so sure about that – all of them seem valuable in a way, rdfs:label as the generic predicate and lemma/presentation/definition as the one specific to a certain entity type. (For example, when writing a query that’s specifically about senses and I want to show the gloss to the user, I think using skos:definition would make the query more readable.)

Smalyshev (WMF) (talkcontribs)

If we have ontolex:LexicalEntry anyway, why also keep wikibase:Lexeme? It's just doubles the data and I don't see much advantage. In the dump - sure, but I don't see how it would help querying.

Tpt (talkcontribs)

I agree. We should not have wikibase:Lexeme, wikibase:Form and wikibase:Sense in the query service if we add them alongside of the ontolex: classes in the RDF export.

Tpt (talkcontribs)

I agree to keep classes for lexemes, forms and sense. I would rather drop the Wikibase flavor instead of the ontolex: version in order to have a content as compatible as possible with ontolex in the query service.

I agree with you on readability. I would drop rdfs:label instead of wikibase:lemma, ontolex:representation and skos:definition in order to have more readable queries. It would also avoid cases like lemmas unexpectedly appearing in existing SPARQL queries that are using rdfs:label.

Duesentrieb (talkcontribs)

I recommend to keep rdfs:label for Lexemes, Forms, and Senses, for compatibility with generic tools like Protege.

Smalyshev (WMF) (talkcontribs)

@Duesentriebcould you explain a bit more what is the relation to Protege in this conext? I.e. how it is used there, etc.? I am not too familiar with these tools.

Reply to "WDQS data differences"