Infovarius even complicated the problem, he put the number of "known"
planets at some time with a qualifier for validity :)

2015-04-29 19:35 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch <mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org>:

> Hi,
>
> General case first: Many statements depend on time and have an end date
> (e.g., population numbers). The general approach there is to (1) have a
> qualifier that clarifies the restricted temporal validity and (2) make the
> current statement "preferred". So your idea with the ranks was a good
> starting point, but it should be "normal" and "preferred" instead of
> "deprecated" and "normal". And infovarius was also right in this sense to
> use a temporal quantifier. Note that more than one statement can be
> preferred if more than one is current (this could be relevant, e.g., for
> the classes that Pluto is/was an instance of).
>
>
> However, this answer is only about the general pattern of dealing with
> things that changed over time, and the intended use of ranks in this case.
> Things might be different here. It's a special case in that it was not so
> much the world that changed but the definition, so the real question is
> what our property "number of planets" really means:
>
> (1) "Number of planets at a given time (given as a qualifier), based on
> the definition of planet adopted at this time"
> (2) "Number of planets according to the definition that was used when the
> property was introduced"
> (3) "Number of planets according to the definition that is current right
> now"
>
> (3) is problematic since it means that the meaning of the property would
> change over time, and statements that were true will become false. I would
> strongly discourage this. But both (1) and (2) are possible. If one wants
> to use (1) then *every* statement with this property must have some time
> qualifier -- otherwise it will not make any sense since one would not know
> which definition is meant.
>
> In case (2), the number of planets of our solar system is 8, and nothing
> else. It has never been 9 *according to the definition of planet used by
> this property*. So if this interpretation is adopted, then the statement
> with value 9 should really at best be there in a deprecated form, not in a
> temporal form. It could make sense to keep a deprecated form to warn other
> users that this should not be reintroduced.
>
> One could also add more options, e.g., one could have a qualifier that
> specifies the definition of planet that is used. This would be a bit like
> (1) but instead of time one would now always need to specify a definition,
> and the statements would not be temporal at all (the number would always
> remain 9 according to the old definition). One could still use "preferred"
> to mark the statement that is based on the most common definition.
>
> The world is beautifully complicated, isn't it? I'll leave it to you
> experts to discuss what makes sense here here :-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Markus
>
>
> On 29.04.2015 18:05, Thomas Douillard wrote:
>
>> Hi, a small question about qualifiers and ranks.
>>
>> It is well known that the number of planets changed in 2006. Or did it ?
>> Of course, Pluto is still here, it's just its status that changed. The
>> definition of planets changed in 2006.
>>
>> This imply that (imho), the statement  "the number of planets in the
>> solar system in 9" should be deprecated. But infovarius did not agree
>> with me and changed the rank of the claim back to normal and put an end
>> date. I still think it should be deprecated, but it raise me a question:
>> How are we supposed (if we are) to express an information about a
>> deprecation ? Should we include something about the deprecation in the
>> sources ? Should we have a qualifier ''deprecation date'' ?
>>
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q17362350
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to