In OmegaWiki we made the choice that any "defined meaning" can be used as a
property. This makes OmegaWiki more like a Wiki than Wikidata were
properties have to be created by fiat. What was found is that people tend
to not abuse this and there is a limited set that is used as "properties".

When you do not insist on the artificial limits implicit in properties,
there will be one victim; it is the structure of the ontology. However when
you analyse things, such a structure still exists it is just no longer
formal. In a way it is similar to the early insistence on using the "GND
types", they did not fit but thankfully we kept the "GND identifier" in
this way we left the structure of GND where it belonged; in GND itself.
They can map to their hearts content our content using their structure.

One final thought, when we have enough data, we can manipulate it. Because
of a lack of data we are still left with many GND types.

PS there is nothing wrong in leaving things as they are.. It works more or

On 28 May 2014 09:25, David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Since the very beginning I have kept myself busy with properties, thinking
> about which ones fit, which ones are missing to better describe reality,
> how integrate into the ones that we have. The thing is that the more I work
> with them, the less difference I see with normal items.... and if soon
> there will be statements allowed in property pages, the difference will
> blur even more.
> I can understand that from the software development point of view it might
> make sense to have a clear difference. Or for the community to get a deeper
> understanding of the underlying concepts represented by words.
> But semantically I see no difference between:
> cement (Q45190) <emissivity (P1295)> 0.54
> and
> cement (Q45190) <emissivity (Q899670)> 0.54
>  Am I missing something here? Are properties really needed or are we
> adding unnecessary artificial constraints?
> Cheers,
> Micru
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list

Reply via email to