Open main menu

User talk:Trilotat

Contents

copy your queries to my SPARQL user pageEdit

@Tagishsimon: May I copy your queries to my SPARQL user page here:

SPARQL Queries I use

I will certainly give you credit.

No credit required; do as you wish with them :) --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks!
Per your Retractions query request [1], I've coded a bunch of papers as retraction (Q45203135) and/or retraction notice (Q7316896). You can probably adapt one of the earlier queries to look for the source papers & link them. --Tagishsimon (talk) 02:00, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

RegExEdit

@Eihel: You mentioned at [2] that you "allowed [yourself] to make a RegEx." What does that mean? Thanks Trilotat (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Hello Trilotat, I mentioned "simplified". A regex with [A-Z0-9]{1} is identical to [A-Z0-9]. Then I added a line comment on my modification. You can test [A-Z0-9]{1}, it will be written "meaningless quantifier". Cordially. --Eihel (talk) 12:18, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
@Eihel: I understood about 5% of your reply... I will try to learn enough about what regex is and does and get back to you. Thanks for your patience as I attempt to muddle through this. Trilotat (talk) 13:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
  • The first part between square brackets is a list. In this list, the characters in upper case from A to Z and the numbers from 0 to 9 are allowed, 1 time. (ASCII characters)
  • A list or any other thing may be followed by a "quantifier" between braces. For example, a{3} are exactly 3 a consecutive, no more, no less.
  • If my identifier includes a{3} and I write "abc", the last 2 characters are false and the Regular Expression is false. If we write a, it's already one a. Following it with the quantifier {1} is useless.
  • The RegEx allows a constraint on the value. If the user writes a value that does not match the RegEx, an error occurs. It also helps prevent vandalism. Do you arrive at 6%? Moreover if you have problems for a new Property, I am ready to help you (to the extent of my possibilities), you don't disturb me absolutely. Wikipedially. --Eihel (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Eihel: Eihel, do you think that the proposed NGMDb ID is ready for creation? I'm anxious to start applying the id to publications/articles/maps. Thanks in advance. Trilotat (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done --Eihel (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Scraping websitesEdit

@Eihel: Hello... I am trying to build a scraping protocol to pull data from each of the ~16K Geolex ID (P6202) units at https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/search. Doing so requires that I write a line that searches https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/Units/ for the variety of possibilities that look like:

I need to replace the "Aalenian_11821" part so it's replaced with wild cards. The form is a term that starts with a capital letter, some lower case letters (there could be another capitalized term for two word units like GlenRose_8370), followed by a number of ?count of digits. I'm using webscraper. I thought the REGEX terms were the terms I'd use, but I'm ignorant of that language. Thoughts on how to write the search? Thanks, Trilotat (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

  Done + corrections, Geolex ID (P6202). Looking forward to hearing from you. --Eihel (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Your modificationEdit

Hello, if you have a reference, add it, but do not delete another reference to put yours. Thank you. --Eihel (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Where did I do that such that you see it as incorrect? I recently replaced another reference that I had previously added, but today realized is a bad link. Trilotat (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This info here lists references that weren't valid, so I replaced with good IDs. It was apparent when I was a rookie editor, that's the reference I was trying to provide.... I think. I am sensing that was bad form. Trilotat (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
You're right: error 404. Sorry. --Eihel (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Another cool geology referenceEdit

Do you know about this one? Geologic Unit Type (Q63464453), home page, search page. - PKM (talk) 22:05, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@PKM: I have no idea what that is. Honestly, I'm baffled what to do with it. I'm sure there's something I should do with it, but I don't know what. Sorry... confused. Trilotat (talk) 23:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
@PKM: To be clear, I'm interested... but confused. Trilotat (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
That would be because I screwed it up. I meant to link to this dataset: International Chronostratigraphic Chart 2017 as searchable multilingual linked open data. Now if I can just figure out what the order of languages is we'll have multilingual labels... - PKM (talk) 03:15, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
And ... that one’s deprecated. This is the current one now International Chronostratigraphic Chart data set (Q63468524). - PKM (talk) 03:20, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
<headesk>the labels at the top are alphabetical.

Merge?Edit

I keep dithering about whether to merge geologic unit (Q30914189) and geological unit (Q3694119). What do you think? - PKM (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

@PKM: I am not in anyway formally educated in geology beyond the few classes I took at what I think is the world's greatest community college (which I will leave unnamed in order to avoid conflict.) I think they should be merged because I think they are used in WikiData to describe the same thing, though they should be different. Example, my trusty "Dictionary of Geological Terms" describes geological terms (congruent melting point, syncline, etc.) that are used to describe geologic things (rocks, structures, earthquakes, etc.)

I think "geological units" should be chronographic units, stratigraphic units, etc., which describe the things and "geologic units" should be the formations, the things described. Trilotat (talk) 05:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, that’s the two sides of the question as I see it too. I think it’s probably impractical to try to distinguish geological and geologic (especially as the formal vocabularies use “geologic”). (We have the same challenge with historical/historic, where I think the fine difference in usage is at least partly US vs. UK. But I digress.) in any case I am not sure the fine distinctions work across all languages. Ah, English, with its plethora of not-quite-synonyms. Great for poetry, not so much for Wikidata.
FWIW, you gave more formal education in geology than I do. And you *care*. - PKM (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Trilotat".