I've just completed #100wikidays, and my 100th article was about a horse: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12003911 That horse is the grandfather of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20872428, but should I use the same properties as for humans?
We also have https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12331109 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12338810, who were father and son. Again: Do we have animal properties, or do we use the same as for humans?
Regards, Ole
On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Having gone and written the RFC (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Merging_relation...) I've just discovered that we *did* have this discussion in 2013:
https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata%3AProperties_for_deletio...
- and it was suggested we come back to it "after Phase III". I think
the existing state of arbitrary access should be able to solve this problem, so I've added some notes about this.
Comments welcome; I'll circulate notifications onwiki tonight.
Andrew.
On 24 August 2015 at 14:02, Lukas Benedix benedix@zedat.fu-berlin.de wrote:
+1 for genderless family relationship properties.
Lukas
Hi all,
Thanks again for your comments. It looks like:
a) there's interest in simplifying this;
b) creating automatic inferences is possibly desirable but will need a lot of work and thought.
I'll put together an RFC onwiki about merging the "gendered" relationship properties, which will address the first part of the issue, and we can continue to think about how best to approach the second.
Andrew.
On 17 August 2015 at 12:29, Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk wrote:
Hi all,
I've recently been thinking about how we handle family/genealogical relationships in Wikidata - this is, potentially, a really valuable source of information for researchers to have available in a structured form, especially now we're bringing together so many biographical databases.
We currently have the following properties to link people together:
- spouses (P26) and cohabitants (P451) - not gendered
- parents (P22/P25) and step-parents (P43/P44) - gendered
- siblings (P7/P9) - gendered
- children (P40) - not gendered (and oddly no step-children?)
- a generic "related to" (P1038) for more distant relationships
There's two big things that jump out here.
** First, gender. Parents are split by gender while children are not (we have mother/father not son/daughter). Siblings are likewise gendered, and spouses are not. These are all very early properties - does anyone remember how we got this way?
This makes for some odd results. For example, if we want to using our data to identify all the male-line *descendants* of a person, we have to do some complicated inference from [P40 + target is male]. However, to identify all the male-line *ancestors*, we can just run back up the P22 chain. It feels quite strange to have this difference, and I wonder if we should standardise one way or the other - split P40 or merge the others.
In some ways, merging seems more elegant. We do have fairly good gender metadata (and getting better all the time!), so we can still do gender-specific relationship searches where needed. It also avoids having to force a binary gender approach - we are in the odd position of being able to give a nuanced entry in P21 but can only say if someone is a "sister" or "brother".
** Secondly, symmetry. Siblings, spouses, and parent-child pairs are by definition symmetric. If A has P26:B, then B should also have P26:A. The gendered cases are a little more complicated, as if A has P40:B, then B has P22:A or P25:A, but there is still a degree of symmetry - one of those must be true.
However, Wikidata doesn't really help us make use of this symmetry. If I list A as spouse of B, I need to add (separately) that B is spouse of A. If they have four children C, D, E, and F, this gets very complicated - we have six articles with *30* links between them, all of which need to be made manually. It feels like automatically making symmetric links for these properties would save a lot of work, and produce a much more reliable dataset.
I believe we decided early on not to do symmetric links because it would swamp commonly linked articles (imagine what Q5 would look like by now!). On the other hand, these are properties with a very narrowly defined scope, and we actively *want* them to be comprehensively symmetric - every parent article should list all their children on Wikidata, and every child article should list their parent and all their siblings.
Perhaps it's worth reconsidering whether to allow symmetry for a specifically defined class of properties - would an automatically symmetric P26 really swamp the system? It would be great if the system could match up relationships and fill in missing parent/child, sibling, and spouse links. I can't be the only one who regularly adds one half of the relationship and forgets to include the other!
A bot looking at all of these and filling in the gaps might be a useful approach... but it would break down if someone tries to remove one of the symmetric entries without also removing the other, as the bot would probably (eventually) fill it back in. Ultimately, an automatic symmetry would seem best.
Thoughts on either of these? If there is interest I will write up a formal proposal on-wiki.
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata