We really need to keep everything in one forum. Can you two please copy your comments to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Primary_sorting_propertyand continue the discussion there? I worry that the person closing the discussion might not be on the mailing list and might not see your points.
S On Jul 1, 2013 12:16 PM, "Gerard Meijssen" <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > The reason why it is NOT good enough and what you fail to understand is > that this is NOT an attribute that we should morph into something else. Its > name makes it clear: "main type (GND)" this implies that the definition and > its values are external to Wikidata; they are the definition as per the > GND. > > For me it means that when a specific value of this main type makes > sense... ie it is about a person, I use it. I do not use it for any other > value. The added value for using it is some of the tools that INSIST on its > use. From a theoretical point of view, "instance of" serves us equally well > without relying on external values and systems. > > The reason why I proposed the removal of p107 is that people give it a > value that they do not support by providing arguments and guidance on how > to ensure that data entered is valid. So far I have noticed that Wikidata > is seen as secondary to whatever Wikipedia. In my opinion Wikidata is a > project in its own right and many artefacts of Wikipedia just do not belong > in Wikidata. P107 is one such artefact. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > > > On 1 July 2013 17:03, Paul A. Houle <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I would say that GND is a “good enough” answer. >> >> Most named entities are persons, organizations, events, creative >> works and places and these are all mutually exclusive. There ought to >> be a system interlock to prevent confusion between them. >> >> “Organism Classification” or whatever you call it should also be on >> the list, because of prevalence. >> >> One thing I’d add to that is fictional character because there are a >> (1) lot of them and (2) they can be ontologized more-or-less in parallel >> with people, and (3) you’ll get cleaner people if you keep fictional >> characters out. (On the other hand, there are fictional events, places, >> etc. too, though these are not so well documented.) Is it easy to add a >> new GND type? >> >> I think you’re calling the “wastebin” category term, which is >> reasonable (I’d call it a “concept”.) Going much further than this you’ll >> run into Borges encyclopedia style risks, but aren’t the categories named >> in GND upwards of 80% of the topics? Can you run a report on this? >> >> *From:* Sven Manguard <[email protected]> >> *Sent:* Sunday, June 30, 2013 2:19 PM >> *To:* Discussion list for the Wikidata >> project.<[email protected]> >> *Subject:* [Wikidata-l] A solution with finality is needed for P107 - >> maintype (GND) >> >> I have just closed a second deletion discussion for Property:P107 - main >> type (GND). >> >> As with the first discussion, it is clear that there is a broad sense >> that main type (GND) is not an ideal solution, however as it stands now, a >> large enough portion of the community does not want to get rid of it >> unless/until a replacement system is found or developed. For this reason, I >> closed the discussion as no consensus and opened up a request for comment >> on the matter of finding a replacement for P107. >> >> I have gone to the unusual step of emailing the mailing list for three >> reasons. First, P107 is the most used property on the project, and it or >> its replacement will (most likely) remain the most used property on the >> project forever. Second, the GND has evolved into a component of how >> Wikidata is structured; our lists of properties are sorted by GND type, and >> that has a real impact on what properties are used on what pages. The third >> reason is that, as a general statement, participation levels in requests >> for comment have been downright sad. Three or four people participating in >> an RfC is, for a project of this size, unhealthy, and most RfCs don't get >> more than that many people participating in them. For something this >> important, we need at least a dozen people, preferably at least twice that. >> </rant> >> >> Anyways, the RfC is at >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Primary_sorting_propertyand >> I hope that, with broad participation, we can finally resolve this >> issue. >> >> Yours, >> Sven >> >> ------------------------------ >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
