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
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
@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
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:
Ok, sounds reasonable.
In all of these cases I do wonder though why we need to store the number
at all. We can just count the instances, can we not? Queries allow for
this (and will be an official feature in due course).
And in cases where not all instances are supposed to be on Wikidata,
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
Actually, like it is, there is no *number of planets* property, there is a
class of planet (solar system planet) together with a *number of instances*
property. This might save us : we can have two item :
* solar system planet (old style definition) and
* solar system planet (new style definition)
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
