Interesting appreciation... I didn't draft it with lexical information in mind. If we are struggling to make it different, perhaps there is no difference?
Thanks, Micru On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > Nice. However, it is not something we can cope with at this time. It makes > sense to first be able to include lexical items because what you are > getting into is firmly in that area. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 3 June 2014 20:30, David Cuenca <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Continuing with the discussion of last week about the nature of >> properties I follow with my personal crusade to foster a better >> understanding of Wikidata (which sometimes means asking difficult questions >> :)). This time I ask about items, or concepts for that matter. >> >> To start with I cherry-pick a very insightful question posed by Markus >> last week, that unfortunately I left unanswered: >> "The main question is "Did the reference say that pianos are >> instruments?" but not "Did the reference say pianos are instruments because >> of the definition of 'piano'?" Therefore, we don't need to put this >> information in our labels." >> >> To my mind that is a problem that, as the chicken and the egg, can be >> settled with just a word: emergence. There is no such thing as a piano or a >> concept of a piano. But both of them, concept and object, co-evolved over >> time and now we recognize certain objects as "pianos". Timeline: >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piano#History >> There have been so many innovations upon innovations, versions, and even >> name changes, that what we call now "piano" is very different from what it >> was long ago. Same can be said about other concepts like "country of >> citizenship", which is not a valid concept when talking about historic >> people. >> >> When we are creating an item we are capturing a moment of time of the >> past, according to a source in a different past. Eventually this item might >> change its label, change its meaning, or become obsolete. So when I look in >> Wikidata for: >> - a way to reflect label changes over time: yes, that will be possible >> with the mono-lingual datatype + qualifiers, creating a property "label" >> - a way to reflect that the concept is obsolete: perhaps it could be >> reflected with start/end date >> - a way to indicate a different item with a related meaning: it can be >> done with properties >> >> This information is not about the item itself, but we treat it as other >> statements. >> >> In my opinion these kind of statements are different (as labels, or >> descriptions), since they don't refer to the represented entity, but to the >> container that represents the entity. Like the walls of a bubble. >> I can imagine that there will be some confusion between labels that can >> accept qualifiers, other than don't, and aliases that can edited in one >> language but not in other, and all this not grouped with other statements >> that belong to the same metadata group. >> >> So I candidly ask: does it make sense to treat item metadata statements >> just as any other statement? Would it bring more confusion or less? >> >> Cheers, >> Micru >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
