Do we have an easy way of highlighting a gallery of good examples or even a plain wikipage of topical guidance? Would be very useful if we could say 'here's a politician, here's a French city, etc'
Andrew. On 30 May 2014 08:19, "Markus Krötzsch" <mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote: > On 29/05/14 21:04, Andrew Gray wrote: > >> 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... >> > > Good point. The thread has really gone off in a rather philosophical > direction :-) As Jane said, examples (of places where a property should be > used *and* of places where it should not be used) are definitely much more > useful to help our editors on the ground. I usually use items I know as > role models or have a look for suitable showcase items. > > Markus > > > 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 >>> >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > 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
