Hi, for the behavior, I would said a behavior may be linked to a psychological trait. I's say a behavior is defined by the person having a lot of acts belonging to a typical class of events.
someone is said to be "aggressive" if typically when he acts as hostile in many situations. I remember a theory about that : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trait_theory :) 2014-05-28 20:46 GMT+02:00 David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com>: > Markus, > > I share your dissatisfaction with "part of" because that language > construct hides many different conceptual relationships that should be > cleared out, I think we'll have some community discussion work to do in > that regard. One of the uses is: what is the relationship between a human > and his behavior? > I would say that the "human" <has been defined as having> "human behavior" > (or the reverse). But if you have a better suggestion to express this > concept I would be really glad to hear it. > > Now that you mention it, yes, I agree that only a property called > "corresponds with item" makes sense in this context, but not the inverse. > > I would like to make a further distinction regarding constraints. The > nature of constraints is not to set arbitrary limits but to reflect > patterns that naturally appear in concepts. On that regard, I hate the word > "constraint", because it means that we are placing a "straitjacket" on > reality, when it is the other way round, recurring patterns in the real > world make us "expect" that a value will fall within the bonds of our > expectations. > I think that we should seriously consider using the term "expectation" > from now on because we don't "constrain" the values per se, we "expect" > them to have a value, and when the value departs from the expected value, > then it sets an alarm that might reflect an error or not. > > Once made that distinction, yes, you are right, considering that we are > separating properties and items, our expectations do not belong to the data > itself, they belong to the property. > > However, I would like to go to bring the conversation to a deeper level. > What is that what makes the concept of "addition (Q32043)" to be that? What > is in "physical object (Q223557)" that we, sentient beings, can perceive > and agree to treat as a concept? I mention those two because one is purely > abstract, and the other one is purely physical. And I would say that > "addition (Q32043)" <has been defined as having> "associativity (Q177251)" > and "physical object (Q223557)" <has been repeatedly observed to have> > "density (Q29539)". We can argue whether the second is an expectation or > not, but the first is definitely not, someone defined an "addition" like > that and this information can be sourced. Even more, we could also say that > also "physical object (Q223557)" <has been defined as having> "density > (Q29539)", and I guess we could find sources for that statement too. > > With all this I want to make the point that there are two sources of > expectations: > - from our experience seeing repetitions and patterns in the values > (male/female/etc "between 10 and 50"), which belong to the property > - from the agreed definition of the concept itself, which belong to the > data > > Cheers, > Micru > > PS: this is a re-post because my previous message was bounced back "for > being too long" :) > > _______________________________________________ > 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
