> > For articles that are really about multiple different things that cannot > be reconciled in a single natural concept: > > * State "intance of:Wikipedia article with multiple topics" (we already > have several other classes of Wikipedia articles). > * Use some property, say "has topic", to link to items about the > individual topics. > * Optionally: use a property like "subject of" (P805) to link back from > the individual items to the multi-topic pages. >
Can we make do without annotation statements like "instance of: Wikipedia page with multiple topics"? In my opinion, such statements would unnecessarily clutter a significant portion of our items and would be better inferred by the presence of *subject of* (P805) claims. I think it's better to reserve *instance of* for talk about the essence of the subject itself. The closest inverse property for* subject of* is probably *facet of* (P1269). Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoan_Clipper See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7409943 for an initial pass at modelling that. Note how that Wikipedia page says "The aircraft developed an engine problem (caused by an oil leak)", which ultimately caused the in-flight explosion. We currently have no generic way to model causes. Coincidentally enough, I just posted a detailed/long-winded proposal to address that. Please see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P828#A_better_way_to_model_causation and give any feedback there! Cheers, Eric On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 7:36 AM, Markus Krötzsch < mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org> wrote: > My proposal became more clear to me over lunch: > > For articles that are really about multiple different things that cannot > be reconciled in a single natural concept: > > * State "intance of:Wikipedia article with multiple topics" (we already > have several other classes of Wikipedia articles). > * Use some property, say "has topic", to link to items about the > individual topics. > * Optionally: use a property like "subject of" (P805) to link back from > the individual items to the multi-topic pages. > > The main proposal here is to treat these things like Wikipedia > disambiguation pages: we have items, but the items are mainly about the > page, not about any real-world concept we care about. > > Example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samoan_Clipper > > It says "Samoan Clipper was one of ten Pan American Airways Sikorsky S-42 > flying boats" but it includes an infobox that lists "fatalities". So the > article describes both a specific airplane (the flying boat) and an event > (crash of that plane). We should not try to invent a new concept of > "machine-event system" to capture this, but have two items for the two > things we have here. > > We will have many cases where this is not necessary if we can find a > natural "composite concept" that it makes sense to talk about. In these > case, we will use different properties for the links (for example, a > country article may sometimes be used to describe all the federal states of > that country, yet we have a good way of linking individual state items to > the country). As usual, there will be corner cases where it is not clear > what to do; then we need specific discussions on these cases. > > Cheers, > > Markus > > > > On 09.09.2014 11:57, Markus Krötzsch wrote: > >> On 09.09.2014 11:33, Daniel Kinzler wrote: >> >>> Am 09.09.2014 01:40, schrieb Denny Vrandečić: >>> >>>> Create a third item in Wikidata, and use that for the language links. >>>> Any >>>> Wikipedia that has two separate articles can link to the separate >>>> items, any >>>> Wikipedia that has only one article can link to the single item. >>>> >>> >>> That's a nice solution for the language link problem, but modelling the >>> relationship of these three items on wikidata is kind of >>> annoying/tricky. How >>> would you do that? >>> >> >> Before the "how?" should come the "why?". The modelling should be chosen >> so that it best suits a given purpose (the purpose is the benchmark for >> deciding if a particular modelling approach is "good" or not). I guess >> the main thing we want to achieve here is to link the combined item to >> and from the single items. If this is true, then the "how?" question is >> basically a "which property to use?" question. >> >> For this we should look more closely at the nature of the combined item. >> Let's distinguish "combined items" that are natural and meaningful >> concepts from those that are just different topics combined for >> editorial reasons in one article. The first kind of item involves things >> like bands (who have members, possibly with individual articles, but >> which are still meaningful concepts by themselves). The second kind of >> item involves the Wangerooge hybrid, but also many other things (e.g., >> plane crashes and the planes themselves; or people and events the people >> where involved in). >> >> The problem with these second type of complex item is that it does not >> give you a good basis for adding data (you can't say properly which >> aspects of the thing you are talking about). It is also problematic >> since these things are not natural concepts that can be considered to >> have certain "joint properties". Rather, they are a kind of editorial >> trick to organise information in Wikipedia articles. For this reason, I >> would suggest to have a property for making links in this case that >> clearly refers to Wikipedia. Like "is a list of" or the item for >> "Wikipedia disambiguation page". I would avoid using properties that are >> normally used with real concepts, such as "has part" (which would make >> sense for "bands" -> "band member", but not for "Wangerooge hybrid" -> >> "Wangerooge island" (it's not a part since the former is not a proper >> concept to start with). >> >> With such a editorial property, one could then also create items for >> parts that don't have Wikipedia article so as to be able to add data >> that would be confusing/wrong in the combined item. >> >> Markus >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
