query-a5c57b0fccefe1cd505e6937975f8d77
Scientific award ]reply[10:38, 27 December 2018 (UTC)) talk (GerardMWhy have this and more importantly why remove award. There is no benefit for this distinction and it breaks things. Please undo. Thanks, : Because Science Award is a more specific subclass of Award. There is a strong benefit to have the most specific class for every entity because you can do more specific queries.GerardM@]reply[10:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)) talk (GerardMSo you have a need and breakage elsewhere are not your concern. Wonderful. In the past I have asked for explanations for such subclasses and all I got was because. I am one of the most frequent contributors to awards, it is my work you damage. There are alternatives for subclasses. Your notion of the 300 most notable science awards ... notability based on what! Thanks, ]reply[10:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)) talk (Vladimir AlexievHave a great holiday season! -- What "things" break by using a more specific subclass, and can't you fix those things by modifying the query they use to target any subclass? P31/P279* instead of just P31 In our case, we're matching & adding the 300 most notable Science Awards and their winner lists, and we need this most specific class to do the data integration work.: Please explain what is the breakage. "Use the most specific class that applies" is a sound ontological/taxonomical principle. We need such principles of representation, else everyone may use their own variation (eg I've seen inception placed as a qualifier on P31 and fixed several such). If you have an app/query that requires a more generic class, perhaps it can be fixed?GerardM@]reply[11:04, 27 December 2018 (UTC)) talk (Vladimir Alexiev) before we finish the discussion. Thanks! --as in herePlease don't revert (eg .https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185667#P444Notability is based on 5 established lists, eg see 3 of them at If you convince me it cannot be fixed, I can easily add type "award" to all that have type "science award" (whereas the opposite cannot be done!)it follows that you stop doing what you do.]reply[12:46, 27 December 2018 (UTC)) talk (GerardMYour logic is wrong. When you talk about the "300 most notable Science Awards" there is nothing in naming an award that makes them one of the 300. When only the 300 most notable awards are made into a science award, it is an ontological travesty. So what you do does not serve your purpose. It serves no purpose. Thanks, ]reply[23:35, 27 December 2018 (UTC)) talk (Vladimir Alexiev. Now please explain what is the breakage you referred to and why do you need the less specific class "award" to be applied. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q185667#P444: there us no class "notable science award", there is only "science award". Notability is represented as "review score", go check eg GerardM@, it shows what the co-occurence is with other awards, any awards. With all other proper/relevant break downs. So there is no NEED for what you do, if anything it is a duplication of effort. For British scientists an OBE is an important and relevant co-occurence. So your objective is already met in a consistent manner for any and all awards and in a way that is not provincial to science. Please undo your damage. ScholiaThere is existing logic where for an award, in ]reply[05:34, 28 December 2018 (UTC)) talk (GerardMAlso we can express what "bodies of authority" think of an award anyway. This can be expressed for any award not just for a "science award". If these bodies are indeed relevant enough, ask Finn to include these numbers in Scholia.. In this day and age where much of the publisher induced thinking of ranks is controversial personally I think these numbers are something we should pass. Thanks, ]reply[07:19, 29 December 2018 (UTC)) talk (GerardM: Can you undo this redundancy, there is no obvious reason why you have to split award in something that is not structurally sound. Thanks, Vladimir Alexiev@: How would you propose we single out the 300 "most important" awards (in our case science awards), so we can do detailed work on them? I've recorded "review score" by the most reputed award agencies: these statements "so and so have given such and such score" are objective, though the selection of agencies is of course subjective. But if you have a better proposal, I'd like to hear it. Let me repeat that there's no class "notable awards". GerardM@When a subtype is stated, stating also the supertype "award" is redundant. Indeed there are many awards for which the supertype "award" is missing. I've only removed it from "science award" but there are MANY more. Eg this query returns a bunch of Pulitzer prizes: "award" has 2754 subclasses, of which 121 direct subclasses (and MANY more indirect subclasses) have instances. Following your logic, we don't need any subclasses?https://tools.wmflabs.org/sqid/#/view?id=Q618779Please note that If there's a way to distinguish Knight (OBE) given for science from OBE given for rap, or football or whatever, I'd be very interested to learn it. In particular, do you know of some way to use award coreferences to find other important awards?
Use at
- https://query.wikidata.org/sparql
PREFIX wikibase: <http://wikiba.se/ontology#>
PREFIX wdt: <http://www.wikidata.org/prop/direct/>
PREFIX wd: <http://www.wikidata.org/entity/>
PREFIX bd: <http://www.bigdata.com/rdf#>
select ?x ?xLabel ?typeLabel {
?x wdt:P31 ?type.
?type wdt:P279+ wd:Q618779.
filter not exists {?x wdt:P31 wd:Q618779}
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
} limit 200