Let me also chime in and just say that I have never even touched that "fuzzy control" button on my washing machine.
But seriously, I agree with Andrew that some examples are needed. As a member of the IEG committee I am aware how diffiicult it is to explain to outsiders how to go about applying for new properties to be added to WikIData (in the case I am thinking of, it was for properties having to do with Economics-related concepts). Personally I have found it helpful to look at the items for Berlin (one of the earliest and best defined cities), and the Mona Lisa (one of the earliest and best defined works of art) to become inspired about properties and how they relate to items. It will be a challenge going forward to help people both apply for and judge applications for properties. And yes, Wikimedia categories are starting to look a lot less messy to me... 2014-05-29 21:14 GMT+02:00, Thomas Douillard <thomas.douill...@gmail.com>: > Héhé, the Wikidata game suggest it may be a little bit too complicated and > better abstracted away by a three button game for mass contribution :) > > > 2014-05-29 21:04 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk>: > >> One other issue to bear in mind: it's *simple* to have properties as a >> separate thing. I have been following this discussion with some >> interest but... well, I don't think I'm particularly stupid, but most >> of it is completely above my head. >> >> Saying "here are items, here are a set of properties you can define >> relating to them, here's some notes on how to use properties" is going >> to get a lot more people able to contribute than if they need to start >> understanding theoretical aspects of semantic relationships... >> >> ;-) >> >> Andrew. >> >> On 28 May 2014 09:37, Daniel Kinzler <daniel.kinz...@wikimedia.de> wrote: >> > Key differences between Properties and Items: >> > >> > * Properties have a data type, items don't. >> > * Items have sitelinks, Properties don't. >> > * Items have Statements, Properties will support Claims (without >> sources). >> > >> > The software needs these constraints/guarantees to be able to take >> shortcuts, >> > provide specialized UI and API functionality, etc. >> > >> > Yes, it would be possible to use items as properties instead of having >> > a >> > separate entity type. But they are structurally and functionally >> different, so >> > it makes sense to have a strict separate. This makes a lot of things >> easier, e.g.: >> > >> > * setting different permissions for properties >> > * mapping to rdf vocabularies >> > >> > More fundamentally, they are semantically different: an item describes >> > a >> concept >> > in "the real world", while a property is a structural component used >> > for >> such a >> > description. >> > >> > Yes, properies are simmilar to data items, and in some cases, there may >> be an >> > item representing the same concept that is represented by a property >> entity. I >> > don't see why that is a problem, while I can see a lot of confusion >> arising from >> > mixing them. >> > >> > -- daniel >> > >> > >> > Am 28.05.2014 09:25, schrieb David Cuenca: >> >> 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 >> >> >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Daniel Kinzler >> > Senior Software Developer >> > >> > Wikimedia Deutschland >> > Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Wikidata-l mailing list >> > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> >> >> >> -- >> - Andrew Gray >> andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikidata-l mailing list >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >> > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
