Hoi, It strikes me as another example of a search for perfection where we do not even cater for what is good. Our priorities should be with what is common and present it well not with a game of trivia that upset showing what is good and common. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 April 2015 at 18:33, Paul Houle ontology2@gmail.com wrote:
@Thomas is close to the right answer.
Nothing about Pluto changed, it was the definition of Planet that is changed so you need two different definitions of Planets, but note that the definitions of themselves are somewhat timeless, so you are really pointing to some specific definition of a planet in either case.
There is no reason why this is not practical. It is just a matter of putting in another type, and maintenance is not a tough problem since there are fewer than 10 of them. There could be some need for vocabulary to describe the attributes of the definitions, but simply a link to a defining document is "good enough" from the viewpoint of grounding.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Thomas Douillard < thomas.douillard@gmail.com> wrote:
It may not be practical, but it is still possible ;) classes like ''astronomic corp that was thought to be a planet in 1850'' are an option :)
2015-04-30 13:51 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk:
On 30 April 2015 at 12:37, Thomas Douillard thomas.douillard@gmail.com wrote:
Infovarius even complicated the problem, he put the number of "known" planets at some time with a qualifier for validity :)
Just to throw a real spanner in the works: for a lot of the nineteenth century the number varied widely. The "eighth planet" was discovered in 1801, and is what we'd now think of as the asteroid or dwarf planet Ceres; the "real" eighth planet, Neptune, wasn't discovered until 1851.
Newly discovered asteroids were thought of as 'planets' for some time (I have an 1843 schoolbook somewhere that confidently tells children there were eleven planets...) until by about 1850, it became clear that having twenty or so very small planets with more discovered every year was confusing, and the meaning of the word shifted. There was no formal agreement (as was the case in 2006) so no specific end date.
The moral of this story is probably that trying to express complex things in Wikidata is not always practical :-)
--
- Andrew Gray andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk
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
-- Paul Houle
*Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems, Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes*
(607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2@gmail.com https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup http://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l