Re: [Wikidata-l] Number of planets in the solar system

2015-05-02 Thread Gerard Meijssen 
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  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 <
> [email protected]> 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 :
>>
>>> On 30 April 2015 at 12:37, Thomas Douillard 
>>> 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
>>>   [email protected]
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> [email protected]
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> 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 6254paul.houle on Skype   [email protected]
> https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup
> 
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Number of planets in the solar system

2015-04-30 Thread Paul Houle 
@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 <
[email protected]> 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 :
>
>> On 30 April 2015 at 12:37, Thomas Douillard 
>> 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
>>   [email protected]
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> 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 6254paul.houle on Skype   [email protected]
https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Number of planets in the solar system

2015-04-30 Thread Thomas Douillard 
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 :

> On 30 April 2015 at 12:37, Thomas Douillard 
> 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
>   [email protected]
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Number of planets in the solar system

2015-04-30 Thread Andrew Gray 
On 30 April 2015 at 12:37, Thomas Douillard  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
  [email protected]

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Number of planets in the solar system

2015-04-30 Thread Thomas Douillard 
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 :

> 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
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Number of planets in the solar system

2015-04-29 Thread Thomas Douillard 
I guess number of instances works in more cases, for example the number of
iphone ever built could work ... actually if I look at the ''Population''
article in frwiki, I get "Une *population* est un ensemble d'individus ou
d'éléments partageant une ou plusieurs caractéristiques qui servent à les
regrouper." (a population is a set of individuals or elements sharing one
or several characters that allows to regroup them", this seems another word
for "class" :) So I guess it's just a matter of vocabulary.

I guess the population of earth is the number of instances of the "human on
earth" class :)

On the other hand, human population is kind of a natural property for a
country, its number of wolfes for example may not be worth having a
property. Having an item "French Wolf" with a property "number of
instances" is way more convenient and generic, and could avoid the burden
of having to create (potentially a big number of) properties for each kind
of animals we might want to store population in some places.

2015-04-29 21:19 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch :

> 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, there
> are usually better ways to store the number, e.g., "population of Earth" is
> better than "number of instances of living person" (besides the fact that
> we don't have "living person").
>
> Regards,
>
> Markus
>
> On 29.04.2015 20:29, Thomas Douillard wrote:
>
>> 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)
>>   This might just put the problem in another place though :) although
>> this might not change the correctness of statements like /> system/>:)
>>
>>
>> Pluto can still be an old style definition planet, and maybe > system planet>
>>   is a subclass of 
>>
>> Thinking about it, classes are naturally a good way to deal with
>> definitions.
>>
>> 2015-04-29 19:35 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch
>> mailto:[email protected]>>:
>>
>>
>> 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

Re: [Wikidata-l] Number of planets in the solar system

2015-04-29 Thread Markus Krötzsch 

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, 
there are usually better ways to store the number, e.g., "population of 
Earth" is better than "number of instances of living person" (besides 
the fact that we don't have "living person").


Regards,

Markus

On 29.04.2015 20:29, Thomas Douillard wrote:

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)
  This might just put the problem in another place though :) although
this might not change the correctness of statements like /:)


Pluto can still be an old style definition planet, and maybe 
  is a subclass of 

Thinking about it, classes are naturally a good way to deal with
definitions.

2015-04-29 19:35 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch
mailto:[email protected]>>:

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

Re: [Wikidata-l] Number of planets in the solar system

2015-04-29 Thread Thomas Douillard 
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)
 This might just put the problem in another place though :) although this
might not change the correctness of statements like *   <*solar system planet* (old style)> :)


Pluto can still be an old style definition planet, and maybe 
 is a subclass of <*solar system planet* (old style)>

Thinking about it, classes are naturally a good way to deal with
definitions.

2015-04-29 19:35 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch :

> 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
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Number of planets in the solar system

2015-04-29 Thread Markus Krötzsch 

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
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l




___
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l