Poking around and seeing a few things, I think instead a proper model would go something like this (example breadcrumb hierarchy for easier understanding):
P400 platform <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P400> <-- P880 CPU <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P880> <-- ?? ISA <-- P306 operating system <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P306> <-- P1547 depends on software <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1547> but it looks like we merge together the concept of P400 platform with the concept of an ISA (not formalized as a property in Wikidata, but only a Class) Formal example: DEC Alpha <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q858065> <-- DEC Alpha <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q858065> <-- ?? ISA <-- Tru64 Unix <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q204214> <-- ?? So it seems that P400 platform doesn't define very hard constraints around this: - Any computer program, software, etc. can be a platform. - A platform must be an instance or subclass of a computing platform. and probably this was modeled to offer more flexibility, as I see now. I think that makes sense, since historically a "platform" concept has shifted over time. So I think that my proposal for "depends on hardware" is in fact already done, and just simplified as the existing property P400 platform <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P400> . So in the end, I think https://schema.org/processorRequirements in Wikidata terms would expect a type of "P400 platform" or even "P880 CPU" The simplest way to model this would be as you said, making https://schema.org/processorRequirements a subproperty of P400 platform <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P400> DONE! [image: image.png] Thad https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 12:18 PM Hay (Husky) <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Thad, > if 'https://schema.org/gamePlatform' is a subproperty of P400 i would > definitely say that processerRequirements can be a subproperty too! > > > -- Hay > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 2:42 AM Thad Guidry <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Thanks Hay, > > > > It does seem that P400 (platform) is currently being generically used > beyond traditional platforms to say "some kind of hardware or system". > > > > If that is OK and indeed P400 has become elevated and less restrictive, > then I'll gladly use that. It's talk history during proposal seems to lead > in many side discussions but without general consensus of less or more > restrictive use...but now it's usage over the last 2 years seems much less > restrictive. > > > > Would you agree that https://schema.org/processorRequirements could be > considered a subproperty of P400 (platform) ? > > > > Thad > > https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2020 at 6:40 PM Hay (Husky) <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> Hey Thad, > >> interesting question. Maybe P400 (platform) might work? This is mostly > >> used for things like 'Playstation 4' or 'iOS', but i think processor > >> architecture could be valid there as well. > >> > >> Kind regards, > >> -- Hay > >> > >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 12:11 AM Thad Guidry <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > With application Q166142 > >> > > >> > I ran into a mapping problem again with Schema.org where we have a > nice Property already called https://schema.org/processorRequirements > that allows listing the ISA (instruction set architecture) that some > applications are designed for and require in order to run. (This happened a > lot historically when the world wasn't limited to a handful of ISA's beyond > Intel-based and ARM-based :-) ) > >> > > >> > Anyways... > >> > > >> > As you can see on application Q166142 where I tried to overload > through properties for this type P1963 the use of the existing instruction > set P1068 which doesn't quite work, since an application is not a class of > electronic circuit or instruction set architecture. > >> > > >> > I could not find an appropriate Property already existing in a > predicate form. > >> > Such as "requires ISA" or "requires instruction set" or even better > and more generally "depends on hardware" since we seem to already have a > depends on software Property and this could be the reverse to state that > some Thing has a hardware dependency or requires some kind of hardware ? > >> > > >> > I'd love some help in searching if something like this already > exists, or if that kind of Property was proposed before. (I sincerely tried > and dug around for over 2 hours) > >> > > >> > I could thus properly map and connect a few more dots to Schema.org's > property and other Linked Open Vocabularies. > >> > > >> > Thad > >> > https://www.linkedin.com/in/thadguidry/ > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
