My intervention was limited to cases that *can* be generalised (such as "points scored" or "twin cities"), I wasn't talking about a "one property fits all". Sorry for the misunderstanding.
I meant, in other words, that whenever it's possible (as in *this* case) to create one property that covers several type of comparable things, it should be preferable to make just one property, instead of several ones which are hard to distinguish or have too few differences among themselves. Hope this time I was more clear :) L. 2015-09-28 16:14 GMT+02:00 Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschnei...@gmail.com>: > On 09/28/2015 04:31 AM, Luca Martinelli wrote: >> 2015-09-28 11:16 GMT+02:00 Markus Krötzsch <mar...@semantic-mediawiki.org>: >>> If this is the case, then maybe it >>> should just be kept as an intentionally broad property that captures what we >>> now find in the Wikipedias. >> >> +1, the more broad the application of certain property is, the better. >> We really don't need to be 100% specific with a property, if we can >> exploit qualifiers. >> >> L. > > I worry about this way of specializing properties. How are people, and > particularly programs, going to be able to find out that a qualifier is > needed, which qualifier it is, and how it is to be used, or which broad > property is to be used for a specific purpose? > > peter > > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata mailing list > Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata -- Luca "Sannita" Martinelli http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
