Héhé, the Wikidata game suggest it may be a little bit
too complicated and
better abstracted away by a three button game for mass contribution :)
2014-05-29 21:04 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray <andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk>uk>:
One other issue to bear in mind: it's
*simple* to have properties as a
separate thing. I have been following this discussion with some
interest but... well, I don't think I'm particularly stupid, but most
of it is completely above my head.
Saying "here are items, here are a set of properties you can define
relating to them, here's some notes on how to use properties" is going
to get a lot more people able to contribute than if they need to start
understanding theoretical aspects of semantic relationships...
;-)
Andrew.
On 28 May 2014 09:37, Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinzler(a)wikimedia.de> wrote:
Key differences between Properties and Items:
* Properties have a data type, items don't.
* Items have sitelinks, Properties don't.
* Items have Statements, Properties will support Claims (without
sources).
The software needs these constraints/guarantees to be able to take
shortcuts,
provide specialized UI and API functionality,
etc.
Yes, it would be possible to use items as properties instead of having
a
separate entity type. But they are structurally and functionally
different, so
it makes sense to have a strict separate. This
makes a lot of things
easier, e.g.:
* setting different permissions for properties
* mapping to rdf vocabularies
More fundamentally, they are semantically different: an item describes
a
concept
in "the real world", while a property
is a structural component used
for
such a
description.
Yes, properies are simmilar to data items, and in some cases, there may
be an
item representing the same concept that is
represented by a property
entity. I
don't see why that is a problem, while I can
see a lot of confusion
arising from
mixing them.
-- daniel
Am 28.05.2014 09:25, schrieb David Cuenca:
> Since the very beginning I have kept myself busy with properties,
thinking
about
> which ones fit, which ones are missing to
better describe reality, how
integrate
> into the ones that we have. The thing is that
the more I work with
them, the
> less difference I see with normal items....
and if soon there will be
statements
> allowed in property pages, the difference
will blur even more.
> I can understand that from the software development point of view it
might
make
> sense to have a clear difference. Or for the
community to get a deeper
> understanding of the underlying concepts represented by words.
>
> But semantically I see no difference between:
> cement (Q45190) <emissivity (P1295)> 0.54
> and
> cement (Q45190) <emissivity (Q899670)> 0.54
>
> Am I missing something here? Are properties really needed or are we
adding
unnecessary artificial constraints?
Cheers,
Micru
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
--
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
--
- Andrew Gray
andrew.gray(a)dunelm.org.uk
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l