On Thu, Aug 11, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Markus Kroetzsch <
markus.kroetzsch(a)tu-dresden.de> wrote:
has a statement "population: 20,086 (point in time: 2011)" that is
confirmed by a reference. Nevertheless, the statement is marked as
"deprecated". This would mean that the statement "the popluation was
20,086
in 2011" is wrong. As far as I can tell, this is not the case.
I wouldn't say that with a deprecated rank, that statement is "wrong". I
consider de term deprecated to indicate that a given statement is no longer
valid in the context of a given resource (reference). I agree, in this
specific case the use of the deprecated rank is wrong, since no references
are given to that specific statement.
Nevertheless, I think it is possible to have disagreeing resources on an
identical statement, where two identical statements exists, one with rank
"deprecated" and one with rank "normal". It is up to the user to
decide
which source s/he trusts.
It seems that somebody wanted to indicate that this old population is no
longer current. This is achieved not by deprecating the old value, but by
setting another (newer) value as "preferred".
I would argue that this is better done by using qualifiers (e.g. start
data, end data). If a statement on the population size would be set to
preferred, but isn't monitored for quite some time, it can be difficult to
see if the "preferred" statement is still accurate, whereas a qualifier
would give a better indication that that stament might need an update.
Cheers,
Andra