From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki

Discussing Linked Open Data Strategy 2021[edit]

We welcome your considered comments on our strategy statements. (Please sign your comments with ~~~~.)


Thank you for creating such a thoughtful and well-organized strategy document! This was a pleasure to read, not just because of the exciting content, but also because of the formatting and sections of the pages themselves. As someone unfamiliar with the overall strategy around Wikidata and Wikibase projects, this gave me a clear understanding of the challenges, goals, and stakeholders. TBurmeister (WMF) (talk) 15:13, 29 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Joint Vision[edit]


Wikibase Ecosystem[edit]

The shared ontologies bit should benefit from forthcoming second-gen federation, because then you can actually say in a schema "I mean this property/item on Wikidata that everyone understands", not "this local thing that is meant to be the same". Though, I'm not entirely sure that referring to foreign items is on the schedule? If not, it should be, otherwise it may be hard to assert that a shared schema refers to the same thing. The same applies to lexemes, as I found when I tried to replicate an at-risk Wiktionary entry with the lexicographical data extension, hoping to reference existing lexemes. This might have benefitted from sitelink parsing in the description, but it'd be better to represent the term's derivation from two Wikidata lexemes with first-class statements (never mind that the Esperanto lexemes in question do not yet exist here - though the ones they probably derive from, Fell and ānus, do). Having a shared ontology/understanding for this may require Wikidata itself to host a property along the lines of "Wikidata lexeme for this item", even though it would not be suitable to use directly in Wikidata, unless that can be understood implicitly because the Lexeme is a first-class reference to a Wikidata Lexeme. A similar issue came up in the WBStack chat when someone asked

Will Wikidata accept a new property called "equivalent Wikidata item"?

in the context of using Wikidata's properties - I suggested P973, but this encodes the intent in the URL; P1709 and P1629 also came up, but are not as useful for items. GreenReaper (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up, GreenReaper! I think we will have to be ok with some Properties on Wikidata that are not used on Wikidata itself. And in fact we already do have some of them. There are Properties like Property:P9310 that are supposed to be used only on Commons to describe the media files there and this is also encoded in the constraints on this Property. I think the main question is which additional Properties are ok to add and which are too much, especially if they overlap with some other existing Property that Wikidata has. My thinking currently is that we will need something like the "equivalent Wikidata Item" you mentioned in any case. And then after that it'll have to be a negotiation as well as new feature development to mix local and remote Properties. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Side question[edit]

A low priority side question: is there a reason why this page title and subpage title have no spaces and resemble CamelCase? :). LinkedOpenData/Strategy2021 vs Linked Open Data/Strategy 2021 - Fuzheado (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm not really, no :D Do you think it's worth changing? -- Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think for discoverability and predictability I would move the page. All the subpages have spaces in them (e. LinkedOpenData/Strategy2021/Joint Vision), so it would make sense to be consistent. - Fuzheado (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok I checked with people. Let's make the change. Is there a tool that makes it easier to move several pages at once? Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 17:13, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]