I agree too.
Also note that property IDs are language-neutral, unlike english names
of templates, magic words, etc.
Il 13/07/2015 11:45, Jane Darnell ha scritto:
Me too. On the point of Wikipedia templates, I would like to remind
you that templates are a dramatically confusing mess on Wikipedia, and
lots of those "unique, localized names" do not lend themselves to
reuse, which is why we have so many doubles and why the translation
extension hasn't been able to use them yet. Andy Mabbett has spent a
lot of time and effort in trying to clean this up a bit on the English
Wikipedia by merging and consolidating various popular templates, and
I believe that properties are starting to move in the same direction.
I certainly don't think we want to look at Wikipedia templates as an
example of how to go about doing this.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 9:10 AM, John Erling Blad <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I for one agree with Gerard that this is a problem.
John
søn. 12. jul. 2015, 18.08 skrev Daniel Kinzler
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>:
Am 12.07.2015 um 15:31 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi,
> You do not get it.
Indeed. This is why I am asking questions.
> There are many properties. Consequently the scale of things
> is substantially different.
There are far, far more templates than properties. And we use
unique, localized
names for templates. Why not for properties? And if we don't
want this for
properties, why do the same arguments not apply for template
names?
> It has been demonstrated that languages will have
> homonyms and consequently it is NOT a good idea to use
labels or whatever you
> call them for properties. You can use them as long as
internally you use the
> P-number.
Internally, we always use the P-number. Unless with
"internally" you mean "in
wikitext". This is the point under discussion: whether we want
localized names
for use in wikitext.
> You can use a text as long as the combination of label and
description
> is unique. This combination may be useful.
This is how we do it for items. This works quite well with a
selector widget. It
does not work inside wikitext - there, you either need a
unique name, or rely on
the plain ID.
For items, sitelinks act as a per-language unique name. For
properties, we
decided to require a unique label, since we can't use
sitelinks there, and the
number is low enough (a few thousand, compared to tens of
millions of items)
that ambuguities should be rare.
> At the same time be aware that property labels will be wrong
and will need to be
> changed at a later date.
This is why we want to make aliases unique. If we have unique
aliases, labels
can change without breaking anything.
> When this presents a problem for the comparison with
> external sources, it is tough. It is best to indicate this
from the start.
Why would labels or aliases be used for comparison with
external sources?
Properties can be linked to external vocabularies via
statements, just like we
do it for items. Relying on labels for doing this would be
asking for trouble.
> The argument about what happens in MediaWiki is secondary.
And sorry that not
> everyone cares or knows about that in your way. The point is
very much that at
> the scale of thousands and thousands of properties it does
not scale. This point
> has been made plenty of times by now.
Really? How and where? I only hear you asserting it, but I see
no evidence. I
see it scaling perfectly well on Wikidata. Property names
already *are* unique,
always have been. I know of no major problems with this. There
are some issues
with cultural differences and homonyms (e.g. the distinction
between sex and
gender, or the double meaning of "editor" in Portuguese), but
these are
relatively rare, and no worse than naming dicussions on Wikipedia.
--
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
_______________________________________________
Wikidata mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[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
