Hoi,
When a statement is used in a text, the same is true. Sometimes only the
value is needed and sometimes an associated text is helpful. The notion
that Wikidata insists on a set label is wrong for all the reasons given.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 11 July 2015 at 11:22, Thomas Douillard <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Hi. I understand your argument but I think there is an underlying
> incorrect assumption : template editors are actually ... Templates
> developers. Not regular editors. It's only a fraction of editors who
> actually touched a template in their life. (Maybe there is numbers
> somewhere)
>
> With that in mind, the question become: will this change be any useful for
> those who already edited templates (my guess is barely) and for those who
> did never edited a template the same question can be asked. What stopped
> them until now, will Wikidata change anything to this, and lastly ... Will
> this feature have any influence at all ? I'm really dubious it's worth
> the trouble pictured like that. But I could be wrong. It would take more
> than a blogpost to convince me though ;)
> Le 11 juil. 2015 09:29, "Gerard Meijssen" <[email protected]> a
> écrit :
>
>> Hoi,
>> I blogged about it. My argument is that Wikipedia should not be fenced in
>> by assumptions from Wikidata.
>> Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>
>>
>> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2015/07/wikidata-dont-fence-wikipedia-in.html
>>
>> On 10 July 2015 at 17:35, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> I have been thinking about this. I think the current approach is wrong.
>>> I think it is the properties where Wikipedians rightfully want to be able
>>> to use a text as a label that fits their need. Restricting this is probably
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> It is in the Q values that we do NOT want editors to make a change,
>>> obviously. I intent to write more about this.
>>> Thanks,
>>> GerardM
>>>
>>> On 9 July 2015 at 12:15, Daniel Kinzler <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Before I reply to what you wrote Gerard, let me summarize the question
>>>> we
>>>> actually need to answer to go forward:
>>>>
>>>> * currently, property values can be accessed from wikitext using the
>>>> property's
>>>> (unique) label. Do we want to keep this? (the alternative is access via
>>>> P-ids only)
>>>>
>>>> * if yes, should it be possible to change a property's label at all?
>>>>
>>>> * if yes, should references to the old label break, or should they
>>>> continue to work?
>>>>
>>>> * if they should continue to work, should this be achieved by making
>>>> the old
>>>> label an alias?
>>>>
>>>> * if no, how should it be achieved, exactly?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Am 09.07.2015 um 11:54 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
>>>> > Hoi,
>>>> > The parser would understand it because it stored information. The
>>>> property is
>>>> > still the same property, the label it uses is now seen as a local
>>>> overrride.
>>>>
>>>> That would be a completely new system, and quite complicated. It would
>>>> also
>>>> introduce a host of new issues (such local overrides may conflict with
>>>> new
>>>> names, or other local overrides, for instance. Language fallback makes
>>>> this even
>>>> more fun. Not to mention that we currently don't have a good place to
>>>> store this
>>>> kind of information).
>>>>
>>>> The current proposal is to store those overrides in wikidata, as
>>>> aliases.
>>>>
>>>> > Daniel, there are many ways to solve this. The problem you face is
>>>> based on a
>>>> > misconception. Language are not meant for rigidity.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed. But names can be chosen to be unique. We do that all the time
>>>> when
>>>> naming pages. And when naming properties. Property names (labels) were
>>>> always
>>>> meant to be unique, this is nothing new. (For a while, there was a bug
>>>> that
>>>> allowed duplicate labels under *some* circumstances, sorry for that).
>>>>
>>>> > Expectting that you can has
>>>> > already been shown to be problematic. Consequently persisting on
>>>> labels to be
>>>> > always unique is a problem of your own choosing. A problem that will
>>>> not go away
>>>> > and is easiest solved now.
>>>>
>>>> If we drop the requirement that properties should be accessible from
>>>> wikitext
>>>> via their name, then yes, that would be easy. If people can live with
>>>> using
>>>> P-Ids directly, that's fine with me.
>>>>
>>>> > It is abundantly clear that you WILL use the requirement of Wikidata
>>>> as an
>>>> > excuse when a language has no alternative.
>>>>
>>>> Excuse for what? From a programming perspective, making people use IDs
>>>> is by far
>>>> the simplest solution. It's easy enough for remove support for label
>>>> based
>>>> access to properties, if that support is not needed.
>>>>
>>>> Allowing access from wikitext using non-unique names, THAT is not
>>>> something I
>>>> would want to support. I can't imagine how that would work at all.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
