Re: [Wikidata] Use-notes in item descriptions

[John Erling Blad]

Descriptions is a clarification like the parenthesis form on Wikipedia, but
extended and formalized. Use notes should not be put into this field.

John

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, James Heald  wrote:

> The place where these hints are vital is in the tool-tips that come up
> when somebody is inputting the value of a property.
>
> It's a quick message to say "don't use that item, use this other item".
>
> A section on the talk page simply doesn't cover it.
>
> I suppose one could create a community property, as you suggest, but as
> you say the challenge would be then making sure the system software
> presented it when it was needed.  I suspect that things intended to be
> presented by the system software are better created as system properties.
>
>-- James,
>
>
>
>
> On 05/11/2015 16:21, Benjamin Good wrote:
>
>> A section in the talk page associated with the article in question would
>> seem to solve this (definitely real) problem? - assuming that a would-be
>> editor was aware of the talk page.
>> Alternatively, you could propose a generic property with a text field that
>> could be added to items on an as-needed basis without any change to the
>> current software.  Again though, the challenge would be getting the
>> information in front of the user/editor at the right point in time.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>> Yes I have noticed this need for use notes, but it is specific to
>>> properties, isn't it? I see it in things such as choosing what to put in
>>> the "genre" property of an artwork. It would be nice to have some sort of
>>> pop-up that you can fill with more than what you put in. For example I
>>> get
>>> easily confused when I address the relative (as in kinship) properties;
>>> "father of the subject" is clear, but what about cousin/nephew etc.? You
>>> need more explanation room than can be stuffed in the label field to fit
>>> in
>>> the drop down. I have thought about this, but don't see any easy solution
>>> besides what you have done.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, James Heald  wrote:
>>>
>>> I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item
 descriptions.

 For example, on Q6581097 (male)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097
 the (English) description reads:
"human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For
 groups of males use with subclass of (P279)."

 I have added some myself recently, working on items in the
 administrative
 structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire)
 https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112
 I have changed the description to now read
 "ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative
 non-metropolitan county)"

 These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often
 found
 at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those
 hat-notes
 can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful on
 Wikidata,
 for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu.

 But...

 Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users
 in contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or
 to
 feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what
 different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will
 typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct
 thing
 corresponding to it.  (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, for
 example).

 So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do
 really belong in the general description field ?

 Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created
 for them?

 The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results
 and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate
 data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL
 service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific
 meaning,
 better for third-party and downstream applications.

 Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking
 everything
 into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we ought to
 take a
 step forward from it?

-- James.

 ___
 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/lis

Re: [Wikidata] Use-notes in item descriptions

[James Heald]

The place where these hints are vital is in the tool-tips that come up 
when somebody is inputting the value of a property.


It's a quick message to say "don't use that item, use this other item".

A section on the talk page simply doesn't cover it.

I suppose one could create a community property, as you suggest, but as 
you say the challenge would be then making sure the system software 
presented it when it was needed.  I suspect that things intended to be 
presented by the system software are better created as system properties.


   -- James,



On 05/11/2015 16:21, Benjamin Good wrote:

A section in the talk page associated with the article in question would
seem to solve this (definitely real) problem? - assuming that a would-be
editor was aware of the talk page.
Alternatively, you could propose a generic property with a text field that
could be added to items on an as-needed basis without any change to the
current software.  Again though, the challenge would be getting the
information in front of the user/editor at the right point in time.


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:


Yes I have noticed this need for use notes, but it is specific to
properties, isn't it? I see it in things such as choosing what to put in
the "genre" property of an artwork. It would be nice to have some sort of
pop-up that you can fill with more than what you put in. For example I get
easily confused when I address the relative (as in kinship) properties;
"father of the subject" is clear, but what about cousin/nephew etc.? You
need more explanation room than can be stuffed in the label field to fit in
the drop down. I have thought about this, but don't see any easy solution
besides what you have done.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, James Heald  wrote:


I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item
descriptions.

For example, on Q6581097 (male)
   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097
the (English) description reads:
   "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For
groups of males use with subclass of (P279)."

I have added some myself recently, working on items in the administrative
structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112
I have changed the description to now read
"ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative
non-metropolitan county)"

These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often found
at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those hat-notes
can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful on Wikidata,
for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu.

But...

Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users
in contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or to
feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what
different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will
typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct thing
corresponding to it.  (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, for
example).

So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do
really belong in the general description field ?

Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created
for them?

The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results
and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate
data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL
service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific meaning,
better for third-party and downstream applications.

Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking everything
into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we ought to take a
step forward from it?

   -- James.

___
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






___
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

Re: [Wikidata] Use-notes in item descriptions

[Dan Garry]

Hey!

Thanks for sending this. This issue has been noticed and discussed
previously in T97566 . I'd
encourage reading that task for a bit more background on the previous
discussion.

Wikidata descriptions are used outside Wikidata in a few different places
to provide users with short, brief additional context, such as search
interface in the Wikipedia apps and the mobile interface for Wikimedia
projects, and such usage instructions are typically not helpful outside
Wikidata. Q503  is my perennial
example. :-)

I believe some analysis was done in the past that determined that the
number of items that this problem affects is relatively small, with only
around 100 items being affected. That said, I think it's still a problem
worth addressing.

Thanks,
Dan

On 5 November 2015 at 01:51, James Heald  wrote:

> I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item
> descriptions.
>
> For example, on Q6581097 (male)
>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097
> the (English) description reads:
>   "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For groups
> of males use with subclass of (P279)."
>
> I have added some myself recently, working on items in the administrative
> structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire)
>https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112
> I have changed the description to now read
>"ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative
> non-metropolitan county)"
>
> These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often found
> at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those hat-notes
> can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful on Wikidata,
> for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu.
>
> But...
>
> Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users in
> contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or to
> feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what
> different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will
> typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct thing
> corresponding to it.  (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, for
> example).
>
> So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do
> really belong in the general description field ?
>
> Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created
> for them?
>
> The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results
> and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate
> data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL
> service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific meaning,
> better for third-party and downstream applications.
>
> Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking everything
> into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we ought to take a
> step forward from it?
>
>   -- James.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>



-- 
Dan Garry
Lead Product Manager, Discovery
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Use-notes in item descriptions

[Benjamin Good]

A section in the talk page associated with the article in question would
seem to solve this (definitely real) problem? - assuming that a would-be
editor was aware of the talk page.
Alternatively, you could propose a generic property with a text field that
could be added to items on an as-needed basis without any change to the
current software.  Again though, the challenge would be getting the
information in front of the user/editor at the right point in time.


On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Yes I have noticed this need for use notes, but it is specific to
> properties, isn't it? I see it in things such as choosing what to put in
> the "genre" property of an artwork. It would be nice to have some sort of
> pop-up that you can fill with more than what you put in. For example I get
> easily confused when I address the relative (as in kinship) properties;
> "father of the subject" is clear, but what about cousin/nephew etc.? You
> need more explanation room than can be stuffed in the label field to fit in
> the drop down. I have thought about this, but don't see any easy solution
> besides what you have done.
>
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, James Heald  wrote:
>
>> I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item
>> descriptions.
>>
>> For example, on Q6581097 (male)
>>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097
>> the (English) description reads:
>>   "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For
>> groups of males use with subclass of (P279)."
>>
>> I have added some myself recently, working on items in the administrative
>> structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire)
>>https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112
>> I have changed the description to now read
>>"ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative
>> non-metropolitan county)"
>>
>> These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often found
>> at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those hat-notes
>> can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful on Wikidata,
>> for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu.
>>
>> But...
>>
>> Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users
>> in contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or to
>> feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what
>> different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will
>> typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct thing
>> corresponding to it.  (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, for
>> example).
>>
>> So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do
>> really belong in the general description field ?
>>
>> Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created
>> for them?
>>
>> The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results
>> and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate
>> data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL
>> service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific meaning,
>> better for third-party and downstream applications.
>>
>> Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking everything
>> into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we ought to take a
>> step forward from it?
>>
>>   -- James.
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Use-notes in item descriptions

[Jane Darnell]

Yes I have noticed this need for use notes, but it is specific to
properties, isn't it? I see it in things such as choosing what to put in
the "genre" property of an artwork. It would be nice to have some sort of
pop-up that you can fill with more than what you put in. For example I get
easily confused when I address the relative (as in kinship) properties;
"father of the subject" is clear, but what about cousin/nephew etc.? You
need more explanation room than can be stuffed in the label field to fit in
the drop down. I have thought about this, but don't see any easy solution
besides what you have done.

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, James Heald  wrote:

> I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item
> descriptions.
>
> For example, on Q6581097 (male)
>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097
> the (English) description reads:
>   "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For groups
> of males use with subclass of (P279)."
>
> I have added some myself recently, working on items in the administrative
> structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire)
>https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112
> I have changed the description to now read
>"ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative
> non-metropolitan county)"
>
> These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often found
> at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those hat-notes
> can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful on Wikidata,
> for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu.
>
> But...
>
> Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users in
> contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or to
> feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what
> different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will
> typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct thing
> corresponding to it.  (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, for
> example).
>
> So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do
> really belong in the general description field ?
>
> Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created
> for them?
>
> The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results
> and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate
> data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL
> service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific meaning,
> better for third-party and downstream applications.
>
> Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking everything
> into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we ought to take a
> step forward from it?
>
>   -- James.
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Wikidata] Use-notes in item descriptions

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Another point, it is the English label that has this problem. How is it in
other languages?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 5 November 2015 at 10:54, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Given that we KNOW that descriptions are second best in the first place,
> why not acknowledge this and keep the current practice?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 5 November 2015 at 10:51, James Heald  wrote:
>
>> I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item
>> descriptions.
>>
>> For example, on Q6581097 (male)
>>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097
>> the (English) description reads:
>>   "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For
>> groups of males use with subclass of (P279)."
>>
>> I have added some myself recently, working on items in the administrative
>> structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire)
>>https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112
>> I have changed the description to now read
>>"ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative
>> non-metropolitan county)"
>>
>> These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often found
>> at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those hat-notes
>> can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful on Wikidata,
>> for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu.
>>
>> But...
>>
>> Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users
>> in contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or to
>> feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what
>> different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will
>> typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct thing
>> corresponding to it.  (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, for
>> example).
>>
>> So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do
>> really belong in the general description field ?
>>
>> Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created
>> for them?
>>
>> The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results
>> and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate
>> data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL
>> service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific meaning,
>> better for third-party and downstream applications.
>>
>> Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking everything
>> into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we ought to take a
>> step forward from it?
>>
>>   -- James.
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Wikidata] Use-notes in item descriptions

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Given that we KNOW that descriptions are second best in the first place,
why not acknowledge this and keep the current practice?
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 5 November 2015 at 10:51, James Heald  wrote:

> I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item
> descriptions.
>
> For example, on Q6581097 (male)
>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097
> the (English) description reads:
>   "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For groups
> of males use with subclass of (P279)."
>
> I have added some myself recently, working on items in the administrative
> structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire)
>https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112
> I have changed the description to now read
>"ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative
> non-metropolitan county)"
>
> These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often found
> at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those hat-notes
> can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful on Wikidata,
> for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu.
>
> But...
>
> Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users in
> contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or to
> feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what
> different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will
> typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct thing
> corresponding to it.  (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, for
> example).
>
> So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do
> really belong in the general description field ?
>
> Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created
> for them?
>
> The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results
> and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate
> data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL
> service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific meaning,
> better for third-party and downstream applications.
>
> Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking everything
> into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we ought to take a
> step forward from it?
>
>   -- James.
>
> ___
> 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

[Wikidata] Use-notes in item descriptions

[James Heald]

I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item 
descriptions.


For example, on Q6581097 (male)
  https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097
the (English) description reads:
  "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For 
groups of males use with subclass of (P279)."


I have added some myself recently, working on items in the 
administrative structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire)

   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112
I have changed the description to now read
   "ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative 
non-metropolitan county)"


These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often 
found at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those 
hat-notes can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful 
on Wikidata, for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu.


But...

Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users 
in contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or 
to feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what 
different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will 
typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct 
thing corresponding to it.  (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, 
for example).


So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do 
really belong in the general description field ?


Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created 
for them?


The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results 
and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate 
data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL 
service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific 
meaning, better for third-party and downstream applications.


Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking 
everything into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we 
ought to take a step forward from it?


  -- James.

___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata