On 18.12.2012 17:57, Gregor Hagedorn wrote: >> Now, I don't think we need or want ranges as a data type at all (better have >> separate properties for the beginning and end). > > I am afraid this will then put a heavy burden on users to enter, > proofread, and output values. Data input becomes dispersed, because > the value "18-25 cm length " has to be split and entered separately.
No, that's exactly *not* what I was talking about - that's not a range, that's an uncertein single value, specified using a range. That is, the value isn't a range, the value's accuracy is represented by a range. That's fine! What I don't want is having a data type "range" for a value. That would make things complicated, because each "edge" of the range may have an accuracy. In fact, in some cases, the different edges may have different sources and qualifiers. So it makes more sense to have separate properties for them. I can't think of an example where that wouldn't feel natural. -- daniel -- Daniel Kinzler, Softwarearchitekt 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
