I agree with using "instance of" as RO prescribes, also because it would clarify its use.
Regarding #2, what is the difference between stating "<ethanol> instance of <type of chemical compound>" or "<ethanol> type of <chemical compound>? We have some antecedents using ad-hoc typing properties, that perhaps could be merged into a more generic property: https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?search=p%3Atype&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go Cheers, Micru On Wed, Oct 8, 2014 at 3:51 AM, Emw <emw.w...@gmail.com> wrote: > I have removed the statement *"instance of* chemical compound" from > ethanol (Q153) [1]. > > A few proposals have been made in this thread about how -- or whether -- > to use *instance of* (i.e. rdf:type, P31) to classify 'ethanol' and other > chemical compounds, but there seems to be consensus that "*instance of* > chemical compound" is not the way to do it. > > Summary of proposals: > > 1. *Do not use instance of for chemical compounds*. Such statements > make Wikidata incompatible with many major scientific ontologies, like > ChEBI, Gene Ontology and Disease Ontology, which use *instance of* as > defined in the Relation Ontology (RO) [2]. Note that RO defines instances > as particular things that have a unique location in space and time, whereas > classes are universal, general entities which have particular instances. > Instances and classes are thus disjoint, so RO-based ontologies cannot have > entities that have both *instance of* (rdf:type, P31) and *subclass of* > (rdfs:subClassOf, P279) statements as is possible in OWL 2 DL via punning. > > 2. *Use statements like "instance of type of chemical compound" for > chemical compounds*. Doing so makes it easier to generate lists of > chemical compounds, and is valid in OWL 2 DL -- it is metamodeling via > punning. > > Let's build consensus for how (or whether) we want to use *instance of* > for chemical compounds before any mass edits to remove or replace the 14969 > other "*instance of* chemical compound" claims [3] or adding statements > like "*instance of *type of chemical compound" to ethanol. > > Micru has a different proposal for how to model items, which incidentally > does not represent "ethanol" as an instance [4]. However, that proposal is > clearly a more radical vision for Wikidata, and probably warrants a > separate thread for discussion. > > Eric > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Emw > [1] Removal of "*instance of* chemical compound" from ethanol: > https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q153&diff=162563849&oldid=162327014 > [2] Barry Smith et al. (2005). *Relations in Biomedical Ontologies*. > http://genomebiology.com/2005/6/5/r46 > [3] All "*instance of* chemical compound" claims on Wikidata. > http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist.html?q=claim[31:11173] > [4] "'ethanol' is no longer an instance, but a class". > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2014-October/004691.html > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
