Wikidata:Property proposal/WordLift ID

WordLift ID edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Done: WordLift URL (P6363) (Talk and documentation)

Description	WordLift ID, a Linked Open Data permanent ID of publicly available entities curated by online publishers and distributed in various formats.
Data type	URL
Example 1	WordLift (Q31998763) → http://data.wordlift.io/wl0215/entity/wordlift
Example 2	Salzburg (Q43325) → http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland
Example 3	cryptocurrency (Q13479982) → http://data.thenextweb.com/tnw/entity/cryptocurrency
Example 4	bilingualism (Q10779529) → http://data.wordlift.io/wl0472/entity/bilinguismo_2
Example 5	Audible (Q366651) → http://data.wordlift.io/wl0826/entity/audible
Example 6	Microsoft (Q2283) → http://data.windowsreport.com/windowsreport/entity/microsoft
Number of IDs in source	107,910

Motivation edit

WordLift ID refers to 5 stars linked data with permanent URIs publicly available online. WordLift's datasets are also published on the LOD Cloud and interlinked with other public datasets. Devbug (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support - Cyberandy 11:21, 06 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks useful enough to me - Edei 14:10, 06 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good and useful Content - Mreichh 14:22, 06 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Positive - Gencuo
Comment @Devbug: Your examples are incomplete - properties relate a wikidata item to a value, so what are the wikidata items associated with the URL values you've listed in your examples? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @ArthurPSmith: The property expresses the value of the permanent URI of equivalent entities according to the Linked Data principles, e.g. http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland is the ID of the Salzburgerland region in Austria same as 2766823 on GeoNames or Q43325 on Wikidata. Maybe external-id is more appropriate as type and format value can be set to URL. --Devbug (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I've updated the proposal to external-id with allowed values of URL. --Devbug (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I think URL was fine as a datatype here. What's missing are the QID's associated with these URL's - please add them to the examples. Look at other property proposals to see how it's done. ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Got it, I reverted to url data type and added the QID's. --Devbug (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support David (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support This can be very useful - Domus.aurea999 10:41, 07 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks great to me Mark 14:27, 07 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Would be a great addition Julian 15:41, 07 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: How is this different from a generic linked data URI? Is this part of a proprietary system? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pigsonthewing: URLs conform to the Linked Open Data principles so that the URLs represent the permanent IDs of the entities. The URLs are exposed with different formats such as HTML, JSON-LD, RDF, Turtle, N3 according to content negotiation. The system is the open source Apache Marmotta. --Devbug (talk) 10:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Pigsonthewing, ArthurPSmith, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: I've a strong feeling that some of the support votes above might be (sock/meat)puppets, given that their votes here are the only contributions of theirs on Wikidata and the comments attached to them seem a bit sketchy. Mahir256 (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mahir256: I just want to introduce myself here, I am Fady Ramzy working as CMO at InsideoutIO and also a professor for digital journalism at AUC.
- @Mahir256: I myself am David Riccitelli (Q32000705). I believe @Multichill: can vouch for me, having met at SEMANTiCS 2018 (Q50349922) where he introduced me to the property proposal process. --Devbug (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mahir256: I expect there was some canvassing at least. However, good linked data tools are a good thing in principle. According to en:WordLift this is from a company founded a little less than 2 years ago. @Devbug: Can you describe how this approach differs from other WordPress solutions, for example the PoolParty plugin? Asserting that a given entity only has one linked data URL seems to require some sort of centralized management, no? Where is that coming from, what are the licensing rules etc? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: I do think, however, that we should consider striking the votes of the two people immediately above your initial comment and the three votes right below David's support vote for being socks. Mahir256 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: WordLift (Q31998763) started in 2011 within the IKS project of the European Framework Program 7 (FP7). It officially opened to the public in 2017. WordLift is the only solution for WordPress (Q13166) (as far as I know) that fully complies with the Linked data principles and the 5 stars of Linked data. In fact datasets are listed in the LOD Cloud diagram. Entity management is decentralized and happens within WordPress (Q13166), structured data is pushed to Apache Marmotta. WordLift provides also interlinking with other datasets (including but not limited to Wikidata (Q2013), DBpedia (Q465), GeoNames (Q830106), ..., by means of owl:sameAs and schema:sameAs) which is the 5th rule of Linked data "Link your data to other people's data to provide context" (and a requirement to be listed among the 1,231 datasets of the LOD Cloud). --Devbug (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Devbug: Not sure what you mean by "deceentralized" here. There's one Marmotta installation that WordLift is using, right? So every valid URI must be listed in that central location? Anyway, it sounds like (given the "owl:sameAs" comment) you must allow multiple URI's for the same entity, so it's not really an ID either, is it? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: By decentralized I mean that the actual content is managed and stored in various WordPress instances as semi-structured data (title, content, meta fields). Because WordPress is unable to provide a performant and effective triple store, we copy the contents in the form of triples to Marmotta (which may provide also additional features, e.g. SPARQL, ldpath). I am not sure I understand the question about the ID, I'll try to give an example: http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland is the ID for Salzburgerland like Salzburg (Q43325) in Wikidata, 2766823 in GeoNames, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Salzburg_(state) in DBpedia. Wikidata uses GeoNames ID (P1566) to state GeoNames ID and GeoNames uses the pseudo language code "wkdt" to state Wikidata's QID. --Devbug (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Devbug: Sorry, "not an ID" is not the right way to express what I was thinking. But just to be clear, for your Salzburg (Q43325) example there would be at least 2 (salzburgland and dbpedia) and maybe 3 (including geonames) or more (?) correct values for this proposed "WordLift ID"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: Ah, no, the correct value for "WordLift ID" would be http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland just like 2766823 is for GeoNames ID (P1566), Salzburg-state is for Quora topic ID (P3417), etc. --Devbug (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And the central service is deciding what those special URI's are, ok. Is there any mechanism to confirm (a lookup service?) that somebody has set the right URI? We might want to treat this as an external ID with a formatter URL if there's something that works for that... ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: Currently there's no lookup service, but we could provide several, e.g. one that validates a URI, one that autocompletes a URI, ... can you point me to examples of other lookup services? Initially I looked at the formatter, I am not sure it's fit, because the hostname part of the URI may be variable, i.e. by default we use http://data.wordlift.io/datasetname as base URI, however publishers can provide their own custom domain, for instance http://open.salzburgerland.com, http://data.thenextweb.com, http://dati.greenpeace.it/ and so forth. We can also prepopulate and keep the ID in sync from WordLift's side using Wikidata API. --Devbug (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: On behalf of Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic should I set status=ready on the proposal ? --Devbug (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith: Can you please point me to an example lookup service (or another property which makes use of one), so that I can review and learn the API and the best practices? --Devbug (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Devbug, Mahir256: I marked this as ready - I still have some curiosity about how it actually works in practice but hopefully we'll see how this is used and learn from that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question Isn't this duplicating data we should already have? --- Jura 18:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura: Which property are you referring to? Can you make an example of data that would be duplicated? --Devbug (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question on my side. Can you give a sample of data that wouldn't be duplicated? --- Jura 09:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura: For example Salzburger Bauernherbst provides a description, the list of performers, the start and end dates and the relations with other entities that aren't present in Wikidata. --Devbug (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith, Jura1: I am marking the property as ready - I remain available for further information. --Devbug (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it could gain from further input from active contributors. --- Jura 09:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jura: Ok, let me know if I can be of any help. --Devbug (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jura: What kind of input are you looking for? - Edei 10:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Very positive - fadyramzyaziz
@Mahir256, Multichill: I believe further comment from you here would be helpful. I don't believe Jura has grasped the purpose of this property, which is to provide the unique URI that WordLift uses (for WordPress websites) to identify concepts. There is no existing property in Wikidata that can function in this way as far as I am aware, but maybe there's an alternate way of modeling this that somebody has in mind? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:54, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- You are right. Is it comparable with linking directly to the url of dublin core metadata? Not sure if any of the active contributor did either. I wonder what the impacts are and the maintenance requirements. --- Jura 16:00, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I got pinged here a couple of times. Yes, I met the Wordlift guys at Semantics 2018 where we were all presenting. They are doing cool new things with Linked Open Data. Good people, please don't bark or bite. I wonder if we really need a separate property or that exact match (P2888) is enough. Might have missed it in all the text. Did you already address that Devbug? Also I noticed that you are not using the correct entity URI for Wikidata. Take for example http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland.html , it uses https://www.wikidata.org/entity/Q43325 , that should be http, not https. See also https://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/Security-NotTheS.html . Multichill (talk) 17:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Multichill: I looked at exact match (P2888) and its proposal. The first point I see, looking at this example myoglobin (Q192642) which has both exact match (P2888) set to http://purl.uniprot.org/uniprot/P02144 and UniProt protein ID (P352) set to P02144, is that not necessarily one excludes the other. Having a separate property has the advantage of keeping the semantic meaning of identity and clearly identify its source. Probably the question here arises because the ID is a URI. The second point I see is that we will provide a couple of APIs, one that pushes to Wikidata the WordLift ID and one that Wikidata can use to look up and validate a WordLift ID. In which case I think a separate property is more appropriate. But I really rely on your advice here. (Thanks for the heads up on the Wikidata link, I believe it has been manually set to https, we'll fix that). --Devbug (talk) 17:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ArthurPSmith, Mahir256, Jura1, Multichill: Can we move forward? I am always available for further questions or contributions. --Devbug (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- From what Multichill wrote, it appears that you and possibly others above may not be complying with https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_use#4._Refraining_from_Certain_Activities notably "Paid contributions without disclosure". --- Jura 10:44, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Jura1: I am not getting paid to do this, this came out of a sincere conversation at Semantics 2018. I also fully disclosed my identity at 10:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC). Devbug (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Devbug: but you do have some sort of employment relationship with WordLift, right? To make Jura happy maybe it would suffice to create a User:Devbug page with that information? As far as I'm concerned this property is ready to go though. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @ArthurPSmith: Understood, I added the information to User:Devbug. --Devbug (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Devbug: I will be happy to add my support to this if we can please first determine whether ~~"User:Fadyramzyaziz", "User:Gencuo", "User:Domus.aurea999", "User:Popper89", and "User:Jaijal"~~ are all sockpuppets or not. @ArthurPSmith: Please do not create this property until we either strike the votes of those five accounts or confirm that they are in fact real people. If all they are going to do here is give vague comments in support of a single property proposal and have no other contributions anywhere else among Wikimedia projects, then I feel rather uncomfortable being uncertain if they are in fact representative of the opinions of real people. Mahir256 (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mahir256: Feel free to ping them, I can’t really speak on behalf of others. Devbug (talk) 09:53, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mahir256: Go ahead and investigate but I'm not sure why it matters in this case - we normally create identifier properties even with only 1 supporting comment if there are no objections, and this at least four among clearly identified users so these new accounts really wouldn't factor in one way or another I think? ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mahir256, ArthurPSmith: Is something else needed from my side? What are the next steps? --Devbug (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - The investigation can take a couple of days or weeks. It can easily take several months until properties are created. If you are aware of accounts violating Wikimedia's terms of service, don't hesitate to help us resolve this. --- Jura 10:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Jura1: Understood, I am not aware of violations. Please ping me if you need more information from my side. --Devbug (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mahir256, ArthurPSmith, DevBug: As you can see it’s my first time here and I thought a comment was enough to support wordlift's ID addition to Wikidata since we use Wordlift at thenextweb.com (WordPress website) as well. What do I need to do to prove myself? Jaijal (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2018
    - @Jaijal: The fact that you responded at all (plus, I suppose, your linking to your presence elsewhere) is sufficient; thank you for doing so. The other admins and I will be happy to help you if you have any more questions about how Wikidata works or what you can do to help. To the rest (@Fadyramzyaziz, Gencuo, Domus.aurea999, Popper89:) that I mentioned above: if your first contribution on a wiki (and only one, up to this point) is a vote on some proposal--especially one in which the comment attached is not particularly constructive on its own, that can be (mis)construed as sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/(whatever you want to call it) unless you can demonstrate that your account is not meant for the specific purpose of providing the illusion of support. Alternatively @Devbug: if you can identify the other four for us, then the concern I have will quickly be resolved. Mahir256 (talk) 01:14, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Mahir256: I might have a clue about three of them, let me see if I can get them here to introduce themselves as it is my strong belief people should actively participate. --Devbug (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        @Mahir256: I think they're all accounted for now, let me know if I can be of any help. --Devbug (talk) 09:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Mahir256: Thanks so much! I'll start with the tutorials I found here already. Jaijal (talk) 14:05, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Gencuo As my first time on Wikidata, I’m not sure what the rules are. As part of the WordLift team, I gave my sincere vote on the project, as I’m also among the most active users of it, on my blog FourWeekMBA.com where it has contributed to its growth as a publishing outlet. Thus, I saw this step as a natural evolution, which would have made my data better and improve further my publishing project. Apologies if I've been slow in replying to the thread, as I find it still quite difficult to understand the dynamics of the platform. I'm trying to become acquainted so that I can contribute more regularly to it. Gencuo (talk)
    - Domus.aurea999Hi all. Sorry for replying so late, I've been away from my computer for a few weeks. I'm not a regular Wikidata user, as you may have understood but I do use it sometimes for work. I just wanted to give my positive feedback to the WordLift team, as fan of the plugin. Please let me know if there is more I can do to prove myself as a real person and genuine user.
      - @Gencuo, Domus.aurea999: Can you please create your user's page. (You should also sign your edits, see Help:Signature.) --Devbug (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - thank you for the instructions. I did create the page and added the signature. Anything else missing on my hand? @Devbug: Gencuo (talk)
      - I have updated my profile page, I think it's all set by now. Let me know if there are more steps to follow in order to validate my ID. Thank you. --Domus.aurea999 (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Mahir256: Hello, I am working currently with @Jaijal: on our data operations at The Next Web (Q2913725). I added some info on my profile page and will check on how to contribute to wikidata later. Is there any other proof that you may require? Mark (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2019 (CET)
      - @Gencuo, Domus.aurea999, Popper89, Fadyramzyaziz: First of all, my sincerest apologies for the delayed reply. As I stated to Julian above, "The fact that you responded at all (plus, I suppose, your linking to your presence elsewhere) is sufficient; thank you for doing so." As a result I no longer have any non-technical objections to this proposal. Mahir256 (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Gencuo, Popper89, ArthurPSmith, Multichill, Jaijal: @Devbug, Domus.aurea999, Pigsonthewing, Mahir256, Jura1: Done: WordLift URL (P6363). − Pintoch (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]