Property talk:P8408
Documentation
identifier for the KBpedia knowledge graph, which provides consistent mappings across seven large-scale public knowledge bases including Wikidata, and is used to promote data interoperability and extraction of training sets for machine learning
[A-Z0-9][A-Za-z0-9-]*[A-Za-z0-9]”: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8408#Format, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8408#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8408#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8408#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P8408#Scope, SPARQL
Request for Comment[edit]
KBpedia (Q64139102) is a top-level knowledge graph (Q33002955) based around a logical organization of concepts. About 45 K Wikidata items have matching identifiers in KBpedia. About 10% of those assignments are to Q ids that represent Wikipedia categories. There are two principal reasons for using categories in those instances: 1) there is no matching general article in Wikipedia (and, therefore, not one yet in Wikidata with a Q id though perhaps there is reason to do so); an example of this case is Category:Accounting firms (Q8219927); or 2) the concept is broad and is better captured by the entire contents of a category rather than an individual page; Category:Acts of piracy (Q9424358) is an example here.
For 90% of the Q ids where the KBpedia ID (P8408) is assigned -- that is, those that are not categories -- we provide standard reference values for stated in (P248)KBpedia (Q64139102) and retrieved (P813)7 July 2020. @Epì, who has helped work out some uploading issues with these references (which is still ongoing, thanks!), has raised the question whether using the same standard reference values for categories is a best practice or not.
My own view is that an individual Q id that is represented by a single Wikipedia article is the best match, and we should move toward capturing such concepts with their own unique Q id where they are lacking. But, lacking such now, there is nothing wrong logically or from a modeling perspective to use a category and give it the same references as that for standard Q ids.
At this moment, only two of the KBpedia IDs are assigned to categories, corresponding to the two instances of accounting firms and piracy noted above, and none have the standard reference values such as stated in (P248)KBpedia (Q64139102) and retrieved (P813)7 July 2020. As we add the category links, we will refrain from including the standard reference values until some ideas about best practices emerge.
I would like to hear any commentary on this question, or to explain further the modeling choices we are making. Thanks! Mkbergman (talk) 01:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Maintaining KBpedia references when changing item labels[edit]
@Mkbergman, @ChristianKl, @Hannes Röst: I found an item re-run election (Q10609771) linked to a single Wikipedia article, sv:omval, describing an election, called to replace an earlier election, the results of which have been declared invalid.
The item at that time however had an English label "reelection", which I considered to be confusing or even incorrect, as I associate it with re-election (Q481394), electing the incumbent for an additional term.
Searching for the word "reelection" elsewhere in Wikidata, in Wikipedia and in the Concise Oxford Dictionary of English yielded no other reference to correcting an election error, wherefore I concluded it was a mistranslation of the Swedish word omval (L477855) which actually has two senses, one being "corrective election" and the other "re-election".
I therefore removed the English label and changed the descriptions in English and Swedish (which I found a bit unclear) to avoid further confusion. I also marked the KBpedia ID (P8408) reference to "ReelectionForOffice" deprecated as I assumed this KBpedia entry was related to re-elections as well, giving refers to different subject (Q28091153) as the reason, and I added a subclass of (P279) link to public election (Q40231).
However, upon checking the KBpedia entry I found it had no explicit definition of the label, but merely described it as "A sub-collection of ElectionForOffice. Each instance is an election again to the previous position" and referred back to the Wikidata item, Q10609771. This is mainly a description of the technical linkage structure in KBpedia, with no clear reference to the semantics associated with the label ("an election again to the previous position" makes little sense to me; it could mean anything).
As KBpedia ID (P8408) has no Wikidata usage instructions (P2559), I'm unable to find out what to do with this property when the English-language Wikidata label is changed to clarify the subject of the item. According to the edit history, the English label was assigned already in 2015, so the error didn't originate with KBpedia, but as I'm unfamiliar with the criteria used to select items for inclusion in the KBpedia ontology, I don't know whether the current reference should be removed or replaced.
I later found 2004 Ukrainian presidential election (Q568458) with the English Wikipedia article calling it a "re-run election", and as this term didn't seem to be used elsewhere in Wikidata, I entered it as a new label for Q10609771. I'm also considering changing the subclass of (P279) link, as re-runs may take place in contexts other than elections for public office (say, for the chairmanship of a private organization), but I need to analyze the current structure first.
There is a redirect from en:Re-run election to en:By-election, which mentions both concepts, although the main focus of that article is on filling a vacancy that has happened after a valid election, a by-election (Q1057954). Other related (but distinct) items are snap election (Q1333366) and recall election (Q1196663). The redirect however predates Wikidata by a few years, wherefore a "re-run election" apparently hasn't had an item of its own before re-run election (Q10609771).
The issue here isn't what kinds of elections exist, but how to deal with KBpedia ontology links when Wikidata item labels and subclass of (P279) relations are adjusted to reflect a consistent understanding of the meaning of said items. Is deprecation of old KBpedia ID (P8408) property values a meaningful course of action here? SM5POR (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
- I wouldnt put too much weight into KBpedia here, it may be that it was generated from Wikidata and the error in Wikidata propagated into KBpedia? I guess we could either (i) leave things as they are and assume KBpedia updates their definition at some point when recognizing the deprecated rank or (ii) more explicitly assign both KPpedia entries https://kbpedia.org/knowledge-graph/reference-concept/?uri=Re-election and https://kbpedia.org/knowledge-graph/reference-concept/?uri=ReelectionForOffice to re-election (Q481394) in order to indicate a problem in KBpedia and hopefully trigger them to fix this on their end. The way I see it is that you fixed it on our end and it is on in our power to fix it on some other sites, however we can indicate problems in ontology elsewhere by doing (ii) as described above which is easy to search for and should trigger a response on their end. AFAIK this is how we deal with problems in GND and VIAF which we also cannot edit ourselves. Deprecated rank is fine but maybe it will be flagged more easily if we also indicate that they basically now have two instances for re-election (Q481394). --Hannes Röst (talk) 18:10, 17 October 2022 (UTC)