Do we have an easy way of highlighting a gallery of good examples or even a plain wikipage of topical guidance? Would be very useful if we could say 'here's a politician, here's a French city, etc'
Andrew.
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
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l