while djow2019 is waiting for his account to be approved, he asked me to proxy one more reply

Replying on behalf of djow2019 (who originally created the discussion on discourse-mediawiki), yes the issue is reproducible.

In T143819#3350566, @Nuria wrote:

To incentivize them to contribute, we have to give them even better metrics of community usage/impact that they can give to funders

Understood, as I said we are willing to help in any way we can, seems like a great objective. My main point is that if we come up with a metric we should document it outside this ticket once we have some agreement.

We could, however (with some work) capture usage of certain property, or item, or property-item combination, in the original query. Would that be useful?

My initial thought is that there will be two types of metrics. First, we want to look at statement-level metrics. For all the statements that our team has loaded into Wikidata, we have been referencing specific resources that assert that statement. For example, see the human gene reelin (Q414043). This gene has a genetic association (P2293) with the disease Alzheimer's disease (Q11081), as stated in (P248) a database called Phenocarta (Q22330995). We would like to provide the Phenocarta team statistics on how often Phenocarta-referenced statements are used in SPARQL queries. Those statements might be part of the output of the SPARQL query, or they might simply be structural intermediates.

Just want to add a note that if someone on the WMF side was interested in building the infrastructure to compute these usage metrics, the "Gene Wiki" team would be very willing collaborators in evaluating and refining the metrics. We have been working hard loading biomedical data into Wikidata. We've convinced several resources to convert to CC0, but we're also talking with many data providers who have reservations (many of which might be addressed by usage statistics). Based on these interactions, I think we have a pretty good perspective on what metrics would be valuable to this cross section of data providers.

Thank you @leila for the guidance on the process and next steps -- very helpful! @I9606 and I will touch base to see how we want to proceed/prioritize from our end...

@mkroetzsch Thank you for the info. We look forward to coordinating more when/if you see fit in the future.

Would it be possible for our team to get access to these log files so that we can perform our analyses that are related to, but distinct from, the ones that @mkroetzsch is doing? We are happy to coordinate with Markus so that there is no duplication of effort. But, I suspect that our analyses are much more specific to the biomedical research community than their general purpose ones.