00:24:30 Jesse Lambertson: Thank you Hilary 00:27:32 David Erlandson: No one expects the Brazilian Inquisicao. 00:27:49 Adam Schiff: Brazilians are very inquisitive 00:27:54 P Dragon: Hahaha David Erlandson 00:28:58 Adam Schiff: Shouldn't the black dot in the statement be changed to deprecated? (The bottom triangle) 00:31:04 Matthew Miller: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q52105174 - reasons list 00:31:15 Adam Schiff: The current rank is set to "normal rank". It needs to be changed to "deprecated rank", doesn't it? 00:31:34 Jesse Lambertson: this is helpful, thank you Paul and Matt 00:33:06 J Shieh: The ranking should be made to lower triangle. 00:33:24 Liz Hartman: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6036928 ( Inquisição (Q6036928) ) 00:33:53 Karly (she/her): this reminds me of the practice of deprecating redundant year values when full dates have been added as a value for the same property of an item, so they are still there for bots/hooks/references, which I learned when another editor messaged me after trying to clean up what I thought was redundant data 00:34:06 Jeannette Ho: Can we have the link to the website that Paul showed about deletion and deprecation? 00:34:15 hilary thorsen: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Linked_Data_for_Production/Practical_Wikidata_for_Librarians#Deletion_vs._deprecation_of_incorrect_identifiers 00:34:39 Jeannette Ho: Thanks. 00:35:24 Karly (she/her): ^ the reason for deprecation in the example I mentioned above is "item/value with less precision and/or accuracy" 00:35:27 Paul Frank: Sorry everyone, lost audio! 00:35:47 arcadia falcone: my go-to reasons for this situation are "applies to other person" (for people) and "refers to different subject" (for other entities) 00:35:54 Adam Schiff: Paul, have you moved the LCCN into the correct Wikidata item for the Inquisition? 00:36:11 hilary thorsen: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/15FP9B15h7H2erClvdpmSTrAAR7jbyNd9mOinNcWoFaw/edit?usp=sharing 00:36:18 Chiat Naun Chew: I see one of the properties concerns entities not differentiated in the external source, conflation (Q14946528). We’ve discussed the opposite case, where Wikidata does not differentiate entities. Does that discussion belong here? 00:37:42 Chiat Naun Chew: I wonder if these solutions cover the situations we deal with in NACO with “cannot identify with” or “not the same as” notes. 00:38:00 Paul Frank: Adam, I did not do that, but I will do so when I make the deprecation complete. Paul 00:40:37 Jesse Lambertson: We proposed a property, but this might affect our success in terms of approval... :) But, also, we wanted to go through the property proposal process. 00:41:42 J Shieh: When not available, work around is possible, e.g., and . 00:42:06 Jesse Lambertson: thanks jackie, I will copy that to our local notes 00:43:13 Adam Schiff: I recently proposed "supplement to" but not the inverse. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work#supplement_to 00:45:17 Honor M. Moody: @Naun I wouldn't think so, since Q14946528 is defined as erroneous, which suggests that this wouldn't be appropriate for undifferentiated NARs, since we did it on purpose 00:49:13 Adam Schiff: Jesse - tell us the property and we can go in and comment on it 00:49:44 Chiat Naun Chew: So @Honor Q14946528 won’t address modelling differences. 00:50:08 Jesse Lambertson: thanks - let me check with Thomas... 00:50:19 P Dragon: This may be too tangential... but what are your favorite ways to find pertinent properties? For instance I am adding a lot of military people. I just recently realized there is a property called conflict, for the name of the war the person was in. Is there a service which suggests "items that use these properties also usually use these other properties"? 00:50:49 Karly (she/her): @P Dragon, I like Recoin for this! 00:50:50 Crystal E. Clements: @ P Dragon that's the Recoin gadget :) It's awesome! 00:51:17 Karly (she/her): https://m.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Recoin 00:52:15 Honor M. Moody: @Naun, that sounds right to me, that it would need to be a factual error rather than a modelling difference 00:53:29 P Dragon: Thank you re: Recoin! 00:55:01 hilary thorsen: SPARQL Wikibook: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/SPARQL 00:55:12 Susan Deborah Radovsky: Thank you, Hilary! 00:55:13 hilary thorsen: It does includes the services 00:55:56 hilary thorsen: Query help portal: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/Wikidata_Query_Help which includes the place to request a query 00:57:08 hilary thorsen: List of properties: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:List_of_properties where you can search for a property or browse by topic. There are also a few tools towards the bottom that are related to properties 00:58:09 Karly (she/her): I often refer to propbrowse, too: https://hay.toolforge.org/propbrowse/ 01:00:59 hilary thorsen: Thanks Karly! 01:01:46 hilary thorsen: Here’s the page in the WikiProject to put your property proposal https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_PCC_Wikidata_Pilot/Pilot_Resources/Property_Proposals and you can send a message to the list to get input/support too 01:03:39 Adam Schiff: Because of the confusion, we are using both replaces and follows in our items 01:05:59 Jesse Lambertson: This issue of name changes rears its head in so many different contexts and it is certainly not consistent 01:07:13 Stephen Hearn: Would a PCC best practice justify modifying existing Wikidata items to conform to PCC? 01:07:42 Chiat Naun Chew: In cases where you’ve broken up an entity into its successive components, have you encountered the need to revise existing statements relating the entities to other wikidata items? 01:09:01 J Shieh: Is WD supplemental or primary source of info service? That may play a role in determine the type of policies and best practices within a given community, e.g., PCC libraries. 01:09:06 Melanie Wacker (she/her): Re same/multiple items --My gut reaction would be to use the same item if it is a "simple name change" and separate items when the name change indicates a difference in scope making it a different entity -- so major/minor change. But it's probably not that simple 01:09:24 Julian Everett Allgood: The distinction is also similar to what Serials folks find and apply with Continuing Resources. We describe Integrating Resources as a single Entity description, but Serials that remain discrete and distinct, we create separate, Successive entity descriptions. 01:10:14 Honor M. Moody: Perhaps the question be, when should PCC modify its practice? 01:10:44 Beth Guay: I see Adam's approach as a necessary immediate solution 01:10:46 Chiat Naun Chew: It seems like there could be a trade-off between the rigour or precision of the model and the ability for a lot of people to contribute to the data. 01:11:22 Stephen Hearn: Is there a way to express granularity difference relationships between Wikidata items? Can the two models run in parallel with expressed relationships? 01:12:20 Chiat Naun Chew: +1 Honor 01:12:30 Robin Desmeules: +1 Honor 01:12:31 Mairelys (she/ella): +1 Honor 01:12:34 Crystal E. Clements: +1 Honor. It would be ideal for us to try to approach best practices collaboratively with the existing Wikidata community. 01:12:49 Susan Deborah Radovsky: Well said, Honor! 01:13:07 Julian Everett Allgood: +1 Honor and Crystal. Completely agree 01:13:53 Will Kent: Well put Honor. The request for comment (RfC) section of Project Chat may be worth posting this question to. It’s a slightly more formal space than Project Chat to receive feedback or seek clarity around process/usage: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment 01:15:25 nancy lorimer: +1 to Honor 01:16:06 Jesse Lambertson: this is a great question to bring attention 01:17:46 Jesse Lambertson: thank you everyone 01:17:48 Gina Solares: Thanks, all! 01:17:50 Meredith Louise Hale: Thanks everyone! 01:17:54 Beth Guay: thanks so much 01:17:56 Julian Everett Allgood: Thanks everyone!