On 29/05/14 21:04, Andrew Gray wrote:
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...
Good point. The thread has really gone off in a rather philosophical direction :-) As Jane said, examples (of places where a property should be used *and* of places where it should not be used) are definitely much more useful to help our editors on the ground. I usually use items I know as role models or have a look for suitable showcase items.
Markus
On 28 May 2014 09:37, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@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@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@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l