- see also Construction Sites
Repeated information - avoid it or go for it?
We have some 7000 documents in the database. Each document has an author, most documents have recipients and most documents mention other persons.
- 375 documents are written by Johann Joachim Christoph Bode.
- 1584 documents have Bode as first recipient
- 108 documents mention Bode
Organising Bode's data set Item:Q133: Should we list all these documents in three sections? It might be interesting to do this because this is the point at which we show that we have far more information on the man than any other database.
We should otherwise not be to eager to begin this because this was the reason why we left the Wiki and went for the database: We do not want to constantly mirror information in various data sets. We do not want the user to keep in mind on which pages a certain fact has to be mirrored.
The ideal situation is that we have every fact only once in the database - and that we fill pages of information with asking the database to tell us. A data sheet on Bode should have a section "Bode as author" and a section with "Bode mentioned" and a section with "Bode as receiver". The visitor gets the full list of documents on each request. (I was tempted to offer a SPARQL link for ach question...)
One could think of the Reasonator (or an equivalent) asking the right questions. (Documents would in this case be our primary source material to explore by the database when asked about a person or an event).
- In diesem Fall würde ich die Information nicht duplizieren. Das wird zu viel und nicht gut wartbar. Eine elegante Lösung könnte ein Gadget sein das die Ergebnisse einer Abfrage in die Item-Seite integriert wenn ihr das da zeigen wollt. Das müsste jemand coden. Es gibt ein Gadget auf Wikidata das in die Richtung geht. Du kannst es in deinen Einstellungen anstellen. Es heißt Easy Query. Wenn es angestellt ist bekommst du so 3 graue Punkte in Statements. Wenn du da drauf klickst geht ein kleines Queryergebnis auf.
Membership information: How should we organise this?- create special Q-items? create more and more P-Numbers?
We have about 1350 with an Illuminati background. A simple membership list would be stupid. We know of some 1350 people that they were proposed. Some 1200 signed a declaration of loyalty. Some climbed into higher ranks.
One way to organise this is by creating a Q-Item for "regular events" - that is for events many people can go through - like signing the declaration:
The grammar is Q [Person] P91 (Affilliations) Q38780 (signed a Revers for the Illuminati)
This is the option to put the load on a singe P and to create masses of Qs for this P but one could just as well create a regular triple with Q (Person) P (signed a Revers for) Q10677 (Order of the Illuminati) - which would open the door to millions of P-statements.
Both options can be substantiated with the same qualifiers.
Which is the better system to organise and to search with SPARQL? (Our present solution has the beauty of keeping all kinds of membership information in one block. We can do the same with jobs and family relationships - and depart from Wikidata).
- Ich verstehe die Daten noch nicht ganz. Kannst du mir 3 Beispiele mit allen Daten geben die das Statement deiner Meinung nach haben sollte? --User:Lydia Pintscher