Héhé, the Wikidata game suggest it may be a little bit too complicated and better abstracted away by a three button game for mass contribution :)
2014-05-29 21:04 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk>: > One other issue to bear in mind: it's *simple* to have properties as a > separate thing. I have been following this discussion with some > interest but... well, I don't think I'm particularly stupid, but most > of it is completely above my head. > > Saying "here are items, here are a set of properties you can define > relating to them, here's some notes on how to use properties" is going > to get a lot more people able to contribute than if they need to start > understanding theoretical aspects of semantic relationships... > > ;-) > > Andrew. > > On 28 May 2014 09:37, Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinz...@wikimedia.de> wrote: > > Key differences between Properties and Items: > > > > * Properties have a data type, items don't. > > * Items have sitelinks, Properties don't. > > * Items have Statements, Properties will support Claims (without > sources). > > > > The software needs these constraints/guarantees to be able to take > shortcuts, > > provide specialized UI and API functionality, etc. > > > > Yes, it would be possible to use items as properties instead of having a > > separate entity type. But they are structurally and functionally > different, so > > it makes sense to have a strict separate. This makes a lot of things > easier, e.g.: > > > > * setting different permissions for properties > > * mapping to rdf vocabularies > > > > More fundamentally, they are semantically different: an item describes a > concept > > in "the real world", while a property is a structural component used for > such a > > description. > > > > Yes, properies are simmilar to data items, and in some cases, there may > be an > > item representing the same concept that is represented by a property > entity. I > > don't see why that is a problem, while I can see a lot of confusion > arising from > > mixing them. > > > > -- daniel > > > > > > Am 28.05.2014 09:25, schrieb David Cuenca: > >> Since the very beginning I have kept myself busy with properties, > thinking about > >> which ones fit, which ones are missing to better describe reality, how > integrate > >> into the ones that we have. The thing is that the more I work with > them, the > >> less difference I see with normal items.... and if soon there will be > statements > >> allowed in property pages, the difference will blur even more. > >> I can understand that from the software development point of view it > might make > >> sense to have a clear difference. Or for the community to get a deeper > >> understanding of the underlying concepts represented by words. > >> > >> But semantically I see no difference between: > >> cement (Q45190) <emissivity (P1295)> 0.54 > >> and > >> cement (Q45190) <emissivity (Q899670)> 0.54 > >> > >> Am I missing something here? Are properties really needed or are we > adding > >> unnecessary artificial constraints? > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Micru > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wikidata-l mailing list > >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > >> > > > > > > -- > > Daniel Kinzler > > Senior Software Developer > > > > 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 > > > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.g...@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
