Hoi, It strikes me as another example of a search for perfection where we do not even cater for what is good. Our priorities should be with what is common and present it well not with a game of trivia that upset showing what is good and common. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 April 2015 at 18:33, Paul Houle <ontolo...@gmail.com> wrote: > @Thomas is close to the right answer. > > Nothing about Pluto changed, it was the definition of Planet that is > changed so you need two different definitions of Planets, but note that > the definitions of themselves are somewhat timeless, so you are really > pointing to some specific definition of a planet in either case. > > There is no reason why this is not practical. It is just a matter of > putting in another type, and maintenance is not a tough problem since > there are fewer than 10 of them. There could be some need for vocabulary > to describe the attributes of the definitions, but simply a link to a > defining document is "good enough" from the viewpoint of grounding. > > > On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:20 PM, Thomas Douillard < > thomas.douill...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> It may not be practical, but it is still possible ;) classes like >> ''astronomic corp that was thought to be a planet in 1850'' are an option >> :) >> >> 2015-04-30 13:51 GMT+02:00 Andrew Gray <andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk>: >> >>> On 30 April 2015 at 12:37, Thomas Douillard <thomas.douill...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> > Infovarius even complicated the problem, he put the number of "known" >>> > planets at some time with a qualifier for validity :) >>> >>> Just to throw a real spanner in the works: for a lot of the nineteenth >>> century the number varied widely. The "eighth planet" was discovered >>> in 1801, and is what we'd now think of as the asteroid or dwarf planet >>> Ceres; the "real" eighth planet, Neptune, wasn't discovered until >>> 1851. >>> >>> Newly discovered asteroids were thought of as 'planets' for some time >>> (I have an 1843 schoolbook somewhere that confidently tells children >>> there were eleven planets...) until by about 1850, it became clear >>> that having twenty or so very small planets with more discovered every >>> year was confusing, and the meaning of the word shifted. There was no >>> formal agreement (as was the case in 2006) so no specific end date. >>> >>> The moral of this story is probably that trying to express complex >>> things in Wikidata is not always practical :-) >>> >>> -- >>> - 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 >> >> > > > -- > Paul Houle > > *Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems, > Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes* > > (607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontolo...@gmail.com > https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup > <http://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup> > > _______________________________________________ > 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