Am 08.07.2015 um 18:45 schrieb Thomas Douillard:
> 2015-07-08 17:34 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de
> <mailto:daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de>>:
>     I think it might be possible, but not easy, and potentially very confusing. Why
>     would you prefer that solution?
>
> Because of the property renaming problem. If unfortunately a property is renamed
> and someone used the label in a parser function call, then this might break
> templates.

Not if the old name is kept as an alias. Which seems the easier and more
streight forward solution to me.

> This might happen if a property is split, and we don't keep the alias
> on both resulting properties of the splitting because of the uniqueness of
> aliases constraint.

Splitting will always be a problem. Some usages will end up having the wrong
P-id or name or label or alias or whatever.

> Of course if the property is split there might need more drastic changes in the
> clients and templates, but relying on labels for stability when we have stable
> Pids to rely on seems like a half-baked solution to me. Especially when renaming
> is so easy in the UI.

The idea was readability and internationalization.

If there is consensus to not use human readable property names for accessing
data, and solely rely on IDs instead, we could indeed stop all this right now,
and just drop the uniqueness constraint for labels as well as for aliases of
properties.

You are right that changing the name of a property shouldn't be as easy as it
currently is. There should at least be a warning.

--
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

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