Hoi,
It strikes me as another example of a search for perfection where we do not
even cater for what is good. Our priorities should be with what is common
and present it well not with a game of trivia that upset showing what is
good and common.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 30 April 2015 at 18:33, Paul Houle <ontolo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> @Thomas is close to the right answer.
>
> Nothing about Pluto changed, it was the definition of Planet that is
> changed so you need two different definitions of Planets, but note that
> the definitions of themselves are somewhat timeless, so you are really
> pointing to some specific definition of a planet in either case.
>
> There is no reason why this is not practical. It is just a matter of
> putting in another type, and maintenance is not a tough problem since
> there are fewer than 10 of them. There could be some need for vocabulary
> to describe the attributes of the definitions, but simply a link to a
> defining document is "good enough" from the viewpoint of grounding.
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Thomas Douillard <
> thomas.douill...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> It may not be practical, but it is still possible ;) classes like
>> ''astronomic corp that was thought to be a planet in 1850'' are an option
>> :)
>>
>> 2015-04-30 13:51 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk>:
>>
>>> On 30 April 2015 at 12:37, Thomas Douillard <thomas.douill...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Infovarius even complicated the problem, he put the number of "known"
>>> > planets at some time with a qualifier for validity :)
>>>
>>> Just to throw a real spanner in the works: for a lot of the nineteenth
>>> century the number varied widely. The "eighth planet" was discovered
>>> in 1801, and is what we'd now think of as the asteroid or dwarf planet
>>> Ceres; the "real" eighth planet, Neptune, wasn't discovered until
>>> 1851.
>>>
>>> Newly discovered asteroids were thought of as 'planets' for some time
>>> (I have an 1843 schoolbook somewhere that confidently tells children
>>> there were eleven planets...) until by about 1850, it became clear
>>> that having twenty or so very small planets with more discovered every
>>> year was confusing, and the meaning of the word shifted. There was no
>>> formal agreement (as was the case in 2006) so no specific end date.
>>>
>>> The moral of this story is probably that trying to express complex
>>> things in Wikidata is not always practical :-)
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Andrew Gray
>>> andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul Houle
>
> *Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems,
> Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes*
>
> (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontolo...@gmail.com
> https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup
> <http://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
