Topic on User talk:Dcflyer/Structured Discussions Archive 1

Hi @Dcflyer,

I must be confused. When you reverted my edit to Warm Springs, Georgia, you said "Redundant claim: it inherits Georgia from Q501151)".

It's my understanding that "Warms Spring is located in Meriwether County" and "Warms Springs is located in the state of Georgia" are separate facts both supported by P131 (i.e. "is in the state of" and "is in the county of" are both aliases).

But when I search for all the cities in the state of Georgia, Warm Springs will no longer show up after your edit.

So from my perspective it looks like those two facts don't cascade/inherit. Can you explain to me what I'm missing?

Thanks! @Clifflandis

1. You actually reverted my edit, referencing the removal of a sourced claim. The only source attached was a reference to an import from the English language Wikipedia; however, Wikipedia is not a valid source.

2. Warm Springs inherits its location in the state of Georgia from having the claim of being located in Meriwether County which has the statement/claim of being located in that administrative territorial entity, just as it inherits being located in North America from having the statement/claim of country as United States.

You can see the hierarchy with Resonator:

https://tools.wmflabs.org/reasonator/?q=Q995678

Hi @Dcflyer,

Thanks for your response. Unfortunately, I'm still having difficulty understanding. Can you show me an example of how the inheriting works, perhaps using the query service or pointing me to some documentation that explains it?

Thanks! @Clifflandis

I see that Resonantor displays hierarchically nested properties, but I don't see how inheritance works when querying Wikidata.

You’re welcome. Not a problem at all.

If you take a look at Property:P131, you can see that one of its instances is hierarchy (Q188619), and Property:P131's Wikidata usage instruction states, "You only need to add the most local admin territory, but check that item also has a P131, with the next level, and so on. (English)"

Okay, I'm following you so far. So how would I need to construct a query for all cities in Georgia that wouldn't leave Warm Springs out? So far I've been looking for "instance of" "cities of the United States" "located in the administrative territory of" "Georgia".

Is there some element I'm leaving out of the query that I should add so that it captures all cities that are located in Georgia counties that aren't explicitly tagged as being in Georgia?

After having examined some of your query results, what stands out is that every entity/locality has the state of Georgia, in addition to its county, as a claim/statement for its administrative territorial entity. I've never seen this type of usage for any other locality, both U.S. and non-U.S. I'm suspecting that this might be due the fact that the Wikidata entities have two instances: city of the United States (Q1093829) and municipality of Georgia (Q76514543), with the latter one possibly triggering the need have the state of Georgia explicitly stated/claimed as an administrative territorial entity.

I'll add back Georgia as an administrative territorial entity for Warm Springs.

I will investigate this further and will let you know what I may be able to find out. I appreciate you bringing the impact of my edit to my attention and apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks!

It might be due to the fact that municipality of Georgia (Q76514543) has a constraint violation for its located in the administrative territorial entity, by not having a statement instance of.

Okay, thanks for looking into it!

I've been doing a lot of editing on Georgia, so if I need to change how I'm describing things let me know. I created the municipality of Georgia (Q76514543) modeling after municipality of New Jersey (Q54115138). I don't mind going back and cleaning things up if I've made mistakes that don't follow Wikidata's best practices for the schema/ontology.

I'm still not able to find a query that cascades/inherits, though. For example, I did a query of museums in Los Angeles County, expecting to see the that the two museums from Los Angeles County would also show up in the query of museums in California, but no luck. When I did a query of museums in California, where I used "Located in the administrative territory entity", or any "subclass of" "California", I expected to see those two Los Angeles County museums show up, but they didn't. I double-checked and Los Angeles County has the correct P131 of California. Is "subclass of" the wrong thing to use during queries to make sure that the inheritance works?

I found this Help page on modelling hierarchy of classes, which seems to suggest that "subclass of" should work... so yeah, I'm not sure where I'm making the mistake. As a test I also tried "part of" instead of "subclass of" but it still won't pull in those two Los Angeles County museums.

Hi @Dcflyer, thanks again for your help on this! I've continued the question over at Property_talk:P131#Inheritance/Hierarchy_not_working_during_queries? hoping to get some extra help. Keeping you in the loop! @Clifflandis