Hi Gerard, I think we should not aim for a "perfect" system, just for "a better one". In our case we don't need to reproduce all cases, just identify the most relevant ones and to clarify when to use each and label/describe them clearly.
"Part of" is understood, but in so many possible ways that its meaning gets diluted into uselessness. Thanks, Micru On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 9:50 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > Hoi, > > I fear that when words like mereology are expected to be understood, we > will fall into the trap where our communities fear what we have been > sniffing. It will just alienate them. > > Part of is something that is understood. There may be academic reasons > that make sense to the people who care about them. The question I think we > should take serious is if that is really where we want to go. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 10 June 2014 20:21, David Cuenca <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I think we should drop "part of" and start using a better mereological >> system >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mereology#Various_systems >> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mereology/image1.png >> >> Cheers, >> Micru >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 8:05 PM, Joe Filceolaire <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Even where there is complete agreement that a human settlement is a >>> 'city' there is still usually a question over the population of that city. >>> The question is down to what to include. >>> >>> A city in many cases is understood to include the contiguous built up >>> area but this will often extend far beyond the original administrative >>> region that bears the name. So we have the "City of London" (the central >>> business district, corresponding to the medieval and Roman city), "Greater >>> London" (The collection of contiguous urban boroughs that area part of the >>> Greater London administrative entity - ironically this does not include the >>> "City of London" but does include the "City of Westminster"), all the built >>> up areas out to the "Metropolitan green belt" (includes bits of every >>> county adjacent to Greater London), or all areas within commuting distance >>> of Central London (with the train services this includes a lot of area and >>> it is getting bigger as faster trains are deployed). >>> >>> When do two cities become one? London and Westminster? Buda and Pest? >>> Minneapolis and St Paul? Dallas and Fort Worth? Kansas MI and Kansas KA? >>> Dusseldorf, Essen and Dortmund? Detroit and Windsor? >>> >>> Joe >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Gray <[email protected] >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> On 10 June 2014 09:20, Markus Krötzsch <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > The class "city" is used for "relatively large and permanent human >>>> > settlement[s]" [1], which does not say much (because the vagueness of >>>> > "relatively"). Maybe we should even wonder if "city" is a good class >>>> to use >>>> > in Wikidata. Saying that something has been awarded city status in >>>> the UK >>>> > (Q1867820) has a clear meaning. Saying that something is a "human >>>> > settlement" is also rather clear. But drawing the line between >>>> "village", >>>> > "city" and "town" is quite tricky, and will probably never be done >>>> uniformly >>>> > across the data. >>>> > >>>> > Conclusion: if you are looking for, say, human settlements with more >>>> than >>>> > 100k inhabitants, then you should be searching for just that (which I >>>> think >>>> > is basically what you also are saying below :-). >>>> >>>> OSM has had a lot of problems with this as well, I think - labelling >>>> something as a "city" is one of those very slippery terms that >>>> everyone thinks is obvious but never quite agrees on what the obvious >>>> bit is :-) >>>> >>>> I wonder if we should think about how best to make sure people know >>>> this. Perhaps there is a role for the "human-readable" pages to have >>>> disambiguation-type notes on them? "If you are aiming to do a search >>>> based on "instances of 'city'", we recommend you try "instances of >>>> 'human settlement'" instead..." >>>> >>>> -- >>>> - Andrew Gray >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 > > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
