2013/1/17 Alexrk <alexrk2@yahoo.de>
1) Can you explain, what are the motives for putting a dimension value directly down to the datatype level. I thought this is just another object property (or qualifier?) like the name, ISO-region, type, source, acquisition date.


In order not to loose the Dim-data that is already available from the Wikipedias, and to use this for scaling. It should really only describe the rough dimension. I would expect that a building would still have something like "area" or similar in its own property. Dimension is used for scaling and uncertainty.

 
2) IMO there is potential confusion between dim as the actual objects size (eg. 20 meter for a building) and dim as a value to control the map scale for showing this object (eg. 200 meter for a building which is really only 20 meter). Maybe it would be more clear if this thing is called "map scale" or the like.


Yes, maybe "dimension" is not a good term. "scale" could be better, but I can see in the GeoData extension that there was a shift from scale to dim, so I assume they might have reasons for that. I put Max Semenik into the discussion, and hope he can enlighten us a bit on it, since he was working on this for far longer than me.


 
Alex

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Alexrk2




_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l



--
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.