On 2016-08-11 22:29, Markus Kroetzsch wrote:
On 11.08.2016 18:45, Andra Waagmeester wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Markus Kroetzsch
<markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de <mailto:markus.kroetzsch@tu-dresden.de>>
wrote:
has a statement "population: 20,086 (point in time: 2011)" that is
confirmed by a reference. Nevertheless, the statement is marked as
"deprecated". This would mean that the statement "the popluation was
20,086 in 2011" is wrong. As far as I can tell, this is not the case.
I wouldn't say that with a deprecated rank, that statement is "wrong". I
consider de term deprecated to indicate that a given statement is no
longer valid in the context of a given resource (reference). I agree, in
this specific case the use of the deprecated rank is wrong, since no
references are given to that specific statement.
Nevertheless, I think it is possible to have disagreeing resources on an
identical statement, where two identical statements exists, one with
rank "deprecated" and one with rank "normal". It is up to the user to
decide which source s/he trusts.
The status "deprecated" is part of the claim of the statement. The
reference is supposed to support this claim, which in this case is
also the claim that it is deprecated. The status is not meant to
deprecate a reference (not saying that this is never useful,
potentially, but you can only use it in one way, and it seems much
more practical if deprecated statements get references that explain
why they are deprecated).
Yes. I think a complete deprecated statement should look like this :
Rank: Deprecated
Value: <some value>
Qualifier: P2241:reason for deprecation + <some reason>
References
* P248:Stated in (or any other property for a reference) --> a reference where the value is true (explaining why we added it)
Value: <name of the reference>
+ any additional qualifiers
* P1310:statement disputed by --> a reference explaining why the claim is deprecated
Value: <name of the reference>
+ any additional qualifiers
JL aka Melderick