I've just completed #100wikidays, and my 100th article was about a horse: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12003911 That horse is the grandfather of https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q20872428, but should I use the same properties as for humans?
We also have https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12331109 and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q12338810, who were father and son. Again: Do we have animal properties, or do we use the same as for humans? Regards, Ole On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote: > Having gone and written the RFC > (https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Merging_relationship_properties) > I've just discovered that we *did* have this discussion in 2013: > > https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata%3AProperties_for_deletion&diff=44470851&oldid=44465708 > > - and it was suggested we come back to it "after Phase III". I think > the existing state of arbitrary access should be able to solve this > problem, so I've added some notes about this. > > Comments welcome; I'll circulate notifications onwiki tonight. > > Andrew. > > On 24 August 2015 at 14:02, Lukas Benedix <bene...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: >> +1 for genderless family relationship properties. >> >> Lukas >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Thanks again for your comments. It looks like: >>> >>> a) there's interest in simplifying this; >>> >>> b) creating automatic inferences is possibly desirable but will need a >>> lot of work and thought. >>> >>> I'll put together an RFC onwiki about merging the "gendered" >>> relationship properties, which will address the first part of the >>> issue, and we can continue to think about how best to approach the >>> second. >>> >>> Andrew. >>> >>> On 17 August 2015 at 12:29, Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk> wrote: >>>> Hi all, >>>> >>>> I've recently been thinking about how we handle family/genealogical >>>> relationships in Wikidata - this is, potentially, a really valuable >>>> source of information for researchers to have available in a >>>> structured form, especially now we're bringing together so many >>>> biographical databases. >>>> >>>> We currently have the following properties to link people together: >>>> >>>> * spouses (P26) and cohabitants (P451) - not gendered >>>> * parents (P22/P25) and step-parents (P43/P44) - gendered >>>> * siblings (P7/P9) - gendered >>>> * children (P40) - not gendered (and oddly no step-children?) >>>> * a generic "related to" (P1038) for more distant relationships >>>> >>>> There's two big things that jump out here. >>>> >>>> ** First, gender. Parents are split by gender while children are not >>>> (we have mother/father not son/daughter). Siblings are likewise >>>> gendered, and spouses are not. These are all very early properties - >>>> does anyone remember how we got this way? >>>> >>>> This makes for some odd results. For example, if we want to using our >>>> data to identify all the male-line *descendants* of a person, we have >>>> to do some complicated inference from [P40 + target is male]. However, >>>> to identify all the male-line *ancestors*, we can just run back up the >>>> P22 chain. It feels quite strange to have this difference, and I >>>> wonder if we should standardise one way or the other - split P40 or >>>> merge the others. >>>> >>>> In some ways, merging seems more elegant. We do have fairly good >>>> gender metadata (and getting better all the time!), so we can still do >>>> gender-specific relationship searches where needed. It also avoids >>>> having to force a binary gender approach - we are in the odd position >>>> of being able to give a nuanced entry in P21 but can only say if >>>> someone is a "sister" or "brother". >>>> >>>> ** Secondly, symmetry. Siblings, spouses, and parent-child pairs are >>>> by definition symmetric. If A has P26:B, then B should also have >>>> P26:A. The gendered cases are a little more complicated, as if A has >>>> P40:B, then B has P22:A or P25:A, but there is still a degree of >>>> symmetry - one of those must be true. >>>> >>>> However, Wikidata doesn't really help us make use of this symmetry. If >>>> I list A as spouse of B, I need to add (separately) that B is spouse >>>> of A. If they have four children C, D, E, and F, this gets very >>>> complicated - we have six articles with *30* links between them, all >>>> of which need to be made manually. It feels like automatically making >>>> symmetric links for these properties would save a lot of work, and >>>> produce a much more reliable dataset. >>>> >>>> I believe we decided early on not to do symmetric links because it >>>> would swamp commonly linked articles (imagine what Q5 would look like >>>> by now!). On the other hand, these are properties with a very narrowly >>>> defined scope, and we actively *want* them to be comprehensively >>>> symmetric - every parent article should list all their children on >>>> Wikidata, and every child article should list their parent and all >>>> their siblings. >>>> >>>> Perhaps it's worth reconsidering whether to allow symmetry for a >>>> specifically defined class of properties - would an automatically >>>> symmetric P26 really swamp the system? It would be great if the system >>>> could match up relationships and fill in missing parent/child, >>>> sibling, and spouse links. I can't be the only one who regularly adds >>>> one half of the relationship and forgets to include the other! >>>> >>>> A bot looking at all of these and filling in the gaps might be a >>>> useful approach... but it would break down if someone tries to remove >>>> one of the symmetric entries without also removing the other, as the >>>> bot would probably (eventually) fill it back in. Ultimately, an >>>> automatic symmetry would seem best. >>>> >>>> Thoughts on either of these? If there is interest I will write up a >>>> formal proposal on-wiki. >>>> >>>> -- >>>> - Andrew Gray >>>> andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> - Andrew Gray >>> andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikidata mailing list >>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata >>> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata mailing list >> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata > > > > -- > - Andrew Gray > andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata -- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588 _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata