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/Q160>is 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(a)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
>