Am 08.07.2015 um 18:45 schrieb Thomas Douillard: > 2015-07-08 17:34 GMT+02:00 Daniel Kinzler <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > I think it might be possible, but not easy, and potentially very > confusing. Why > would you prefer that solution? > > Because of the property renaming problem. If unfortunately a property is > renamed > and someone used the label in a parser function call, then this might break > templates.
Not if the old name is kept as an alias. Which seems the easier and more streight forward solution to me. > This might happen if a property is split, and we don't keep the alias > on both resulting properties of the splitting because of the uniqueness of > aliases constraint. Splitting will always be a problem. Some usages will end up having the wrong P-id or name or label or alias or whatever. > Of course if the property is split there might need more drastic changes in > the > clients and templates, but relying on labels for stability when we have stable > Pids to rely on seems like a half-baked solution to me. Especially when > renaming > is so easy in the UI. The idea was readability and internationalization. If there is consensus to not use human readable property names for accessing data, and solely rely on IDs instead, we could indeed stop all this right now, and just drop the uniqueness constraint for labels as well as for aliases of properties. You are right that changing the name of a property shouldn't be as easy as it currently is. There should at least be a warning. -- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
