Descriptions is a clarification like the parenthesis form on Wikipedia, but extended and formalized. Use notes should not be put into this field.
John On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 6:19 PM, James Heald <j.he...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: > The place where these hints are vital is in the tool-tips that come up > when somebody is inputting the value of a property. > > It's a quick message to say "don't use that item, use this other item". > > A section on the talk page simply doesn't cover it. > > I suppose one could create a community property, as you suggest, but as > you say the challenge would be then making sure the system software > presented it when it was needed. I suspect that things intended to be > presented by the system software are better created as system properties. > > -- James, > > > > > On 05/11/2015 16:21, Benjamin Good wrote: > >> A section in the talk page associated with the article in question would >> seem to solve this (definitely real) problem? - assuming that a would-be >> editor was aware of the talk page. >> Alternatively, you could propose a generic property with a text field that >> could be added to items on an as-needed basis without any change to the >> current software. Again though, the challenge would be getting the >> information in front of the user/editor at the right point in time. >> >> >> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Yes I have noticed this need for use notes, but it is specific to >>> properties, isn't it? I see it in things such as choosing what to put in >>> the "genre" property of an artwork. It would be nice to have some sort of >>> pop-up that you can fill with more than what you put in. For example I >>> get >>> easily confused when I address the relative (as in kinship) properties; >>> "father of the subject" is clear, but what about cousin/nephew etc.? You >>> need more explanation room than can be stuffed in the label field to fit >>> in >>> the drop down. I have thought about this, but don't see any easy solution >>> besides what you have done. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 10:51 AM, James Heald <j.he...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: >>> >>> I have been wondering about the practice of putting use-notes in item >>>> descriptions. >>>> >>>> For example, on Q6581097 (male) >>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6581097 >>>> the (English) description reads: >>>> "human who is male (use with Property:P21 sex or gender). For >>>> groups of males use with subclass of (P279)." >>>> >>>> I have added some myself recently, working on items in the >>>> administrative >>>> structure of the UK -- for example on Q23112 (Cambridgeshire) >>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q23112 >>>> I have changed the description to now read >>>> "ceremonial county of England (use Q21272276 for administrative >>>> non-metropolitan county)" >>>> >>>> These "use-notes" are similar to the disambiguating hat-notes often >>>> found >>>> at the top of articles on en-wiki and others; and just as those >>>> hat-notes >>>> can be useful on wikis, so such use-notes can be very useful on >>>> Wikidata, >>>> for example in the context of a search, or a drop-down menu. >>>> >>>> But... >>>> >>>> Given that the label field is also there to be presentable to end-users >>>> in contexts outside Wikidata, (eg to augment searches on main wikis, or >>>> to >>>> feed into the semantic web, to end up being used in who-knows-what >>>> different ways), yet away from Wikidata a string like "Q21272276" will >>>> typically have no meaning. Indeed there may not even be any distinct >>>> thing >>>> corresponding to it. (Q21272276 has no separate en-wiki article, for >>>> example). >>>> >>>> So I'm wondering whether these rather Wikidata-specific use notes do >>>> really belong in the general description field ? >>>> >>>> Is there a case for moving them to a new separate use-note field created >>>> for them? >>>> >>>> The software could be adjusted to include such a field in search results >>>> and drop-downs and the item summary, but they would be a separate >>>> data-entry field on the item page, and a separate triple for the SPARQL >>>> service, leaving the description field clean of Wikidata-specific >>>> meaning, >>>> better for third-party and downstream applications. >>>> >>>> Am I right to feel that the present situation of just chucking >>>> everything >>>> into the description field doesn't seem quite right, and we ought to >>>> take a >>>> step forward from it? >>>> >>>> -- James. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
