Hi,
I see no reason that this should not be done for other groups of living
organisms where subclass relationships are missing.
It seems very simple to me. Maybe too simple. Perhaps I am intimidated by the kilometers of discussions I'm reading about the taxon-centric aspect of Wikidata, when I'm not a biologist. So, there is no problem if we add that Cetacea https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q160is a subclass of aquatic mammals https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q3039055, as indicated by its Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cetacea?
Cheers,
Ettore
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 at 19:20, Peter F. Patel-Schneider < pfpschneider@gmail.com> wrote:
On 10/20/18 6:29 AM, Ettore RIZZA wrote:
For most people, ants are insects, not instances of taxon.
Sure, but Wikidata doesn't have ants being instances of taxon. Instead, Formicidae (aka ant) is an instance of taxon, which seems right to me.
Here are some extracts from Wikidata as of a few minutes ago, also showing the English Wikipedia page for the Wikidata item.
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7386 Formicidae ant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant instance of taxon no subclass of statement
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1390 insect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insect subclass of animal instance of taxon
What is missing is that Q7386 is a subclass of Q1390, which is sanctioned by the "Ants are eusocial insects" phrase at the start of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ant. I added that statement and put as source English Wikipedia. (By the way, how can I source a statement to a particular Wikipedia page?)
I see no reason that this should not be done for other groups of living organisms where subclass relationships are missing.
peter