We have a number of 'name' properties (with string datatype) + Birth name + short name + pseudonym + provisional designation
and proposed name properties (with monolingual text datatype). +official name There are a number of other name properties we may need +nom de plume +nom de guerre +art name +stage name +nickname Note that 'historic name' is not among these. Historic name is just an official name (or one of the other name types) with an 'end date' qualifier. These names are, I believe, worth putting in statements so we can qualify the statements with dates, type of name, language, references etc. The label and aliases are merely search terms and should, I believe, include all of the names above plus common misspellings. As well as the items above we also have some name properties with 'item' datatype + surname + given name + honorific suffix These are something else again. Joe On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:16 PM, David Cuenca <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
