Lydia_Pintscher updated the task description. (Show Details)

There’s a new property,Some properties are supposed to only hold unique values in statements. [separator (P​4155)]( ([proposal](,This can be modeled via a unique value constraint. There are a lot of these values that only have to be unique with a given qualifier. which is used as parameter of “single value” constraint statements:As an editor I want to be able to define which qualifiers are acceptable to keep the uniqueness of values for a given property so I can model reality more completely without causing constraint violations.

> multiple values are allowed under the single value constraint if they have different values for this pExisting modeling example:

Apparently this was already available in the old constraints system, but the extension never implemented support for it, and then it got lost for a while in the migration to constraint statements since the property didn’t exist yet.

@Esc3300 and/or @Ivan_A_Krestinin, I need some clarification of this parameter, because I can’t find any documentation for it beyond the property description (quoted above):
Examples where this is likely to be used:
* heads of government over time
* official websites by country


- ~~The description (“they [the values?] have different values for this property”) sounds like it’s talking about statements, but this parameter is/was also used on non-entity properties like “NKCR AUT ID” (external identifier) and “official website” (URL). Strings and URLs can’t have statements, so how does this work? Qualifiers?~~ Qualifiers.
- What happens if one value has a ~~statement~~ qualifier for the separating property and one doesn’t?
- Are two //unknown value//s for the separating property considered different?
Questions that came up:
- What happens if values have multiple ~~statements~~one value has a qualifiers for the separating properties~~,y and one doesn’t? possibly with different ranks~~?-> It is not considered a violation.
- ~~- Are deprecated statements oftwo //unknown value//s for the separating property generally ignored?~~ (no such thing as deprecated qualifiers)considered different? -> Yes.
- Should this also extend to the “multi value” constraint (e. g.What happens if values have multiple qualifiers for the separating properties? -> We are lenient and accept the values as long as the sets of qualifiers are different, must have multiple values with different ~~values~~ qualifiers foreven if the separating property)?y partially overlap.



To: Lydia_Pintscher
Cc: Agabi10, Jonaskeutel, Marsupium, Lucas_Werkmeister_WMDE, Esc3300, Ivan_A_Krestinin, Aklapper, Lahi, Gq86, GoranSMilovanovic, QZanden, LawExplorer, Wikidata-bugs, aude, Mbch331
Wikidata-bugs mailing list

Reply via email to