Hoi,
Absolutely..
When full genealogy information is available, you do not need special words
that indicate whatever. It is only when this is not the case that you need
to specify what type of link there is. This can be specific like maternal
uncle or paternal aunt. This makes a practical difference in several
cultures and is THEREFORE significant. Again, it is only of relevance when
it cannot be inferred.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 27 August 2015 at 11:08, Marielle Volz <marielle.volz(a)gmail.com> wrote:
If you want to find all humans on wikidata, find all
items with the
property "instance of" (p35) equal to "human" (q5). There is no need
to infer this from things like having the parent property, that's a
terrible way to do things. Items that are instances of different items
use the same properties all the time, you shouldn't be inferring
anything about the class of an item based on the properties it has.
If you are worried about horses being put in a genealogical tree with
humans, that would require someone to put a horse as a parent of a
human or vice versa. That's an problem with an invalid relationship
being added, not the property itself.
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Svavar Kjarrval <svavar(a)kjarrval.is>
wrote:
On mið 26.ágú 2015 13:58, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
> I don't think that P21 (
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21,
sex
or
> gender) is a subclass of P31 (
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P31,
> instance of). Properties aren't
subclasses in general.
>
> Perhaps you meant to talk about
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P21
> (sex or gender) being related via (
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P31
property
> for items about people). This indicates
that the property should only
be
> used on people, even though the description
of the property itself
talks about
its use
on animals.
It appears that Wikidata is not very consistent internally.
peter
Sorry, I'm not used to the Wikidata lingo.
To further explain my point (to which I think you have already agreed
to):
If I were to produce a code which makes
assumptions based on such
relations, the code would come to the contradiction that a non-human
with a P21 relation is a human, if it were to recursively travel via in
the hierarchy of declarations. P21 is declared with a P31->Q18608871 and
Q18608871 is in turn declared P1269->Q5. Unless special precautions
would be taken, anyone trying to generate an exhaustive list of all
humans on Wikidata (without relying solely on the direct declaration on
each item), they might find themselves with non-humans on that list due
to travelling backwards via such relations.
In essence, it seems like P21 either wrongfully allows definitions of
genders of non-humans or that the property is too broad for a
declaration of P31->Q18608871.
- Svavar Kjarrval
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata