User talk:ArthurPSmith/Draft:Elements, Nuclides, Chemicals Ontology

Test to validate classification

The best to validate a classification is to apply the upper definitions to lower levels:

Example:

• period (Q101843) is a sublass of row (Q1366302), so according to your classification,  neon (Q654) is a subclass of row (Q1366302). Does it make sense ?

Just playing with instance/subclass is not enough, what is really important is the definition of all items along the classification and the inferences have to be coherent. Here we have to modify the definition of period (Q101843) or to change the classification between neon (Q654) and row (Q1366302).

• Then I never understood the need of mixed concepts like isotope of neon (Q470437): why do we need additional classification levels ? I can write neon-24 (Q14662251) is an instance of isotope (Q25276) AND an instance of neon (Q654).

Why don't you create an item "chemical element of the 2nd period" to classify neon (Q654) ? Here we have a complete dissymetry in the global classification. isotope of neon (Q470437) is just something coming from WP based on no reasoning, so instaed of using scraps better get ride of this kind of things.

• nuclide (Q108149) can't be a subclass of chemical element (Q11344): if

• neon (Q654) is an instance of chemical element (Q11344) and
• nuclide (Q108149) is asubclass of chemical element (Q11344)

What is the link between neon (Q654) and nuclide (Q108149) ?

• Then I have some doubt about
  ⟨ chemical substance (Q79529)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ material (Q214609)    ⟩
  . Here we have to precise the definition of chemical substance (Q79529) because if I take the IUPAC definition of chemical substance (see the talk page of chemical substance (Q79529)) then a material is not a chemical substance. Material like wood or stone doesn't not have measurable physical porperties. Just take te density: density is not homogeneous inside a stone (a stone can composed of different layer of minerals) or even a tree trunk: the tree bark is not like the wooden heart of the tree.

• I don't come again on the problem of allotrope of carbon (Q622460) which like the one of isotope of neon (Q470437).

• How can you write
  ⟨ diamond (Q5283)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ chemical substance (Q79529)    ⟩

and at the same time

diamond (Q5283) is subclass of allotrope of carbon (Q622460) is subclass of allotrope (Q21198401) is subclass of simple substance (Q2512777) is subclass of chemical substance (Q79529).

Once

⟨ diamond (Q5283)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ chemical substance (Q79529)    ⟩

and at the same time

⟨ diamond (Q5283)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ chemical substance (Q79529)    ⟩

 ? Strange

I didn't check the last paragraph about atom. This is a very good proposition, but before creating the links between the concepts, we need to check each definition. Once you have written the definition of all concepts you want to link in the same page, this will be more easy to create the links. We will never be able to agree on a classification if we don't have the same definition for each concept. That's the main problem currently in WD: definition. Snipre (talk) 23:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Snipre the first section here is titled "Current Status" and says at the top "How things are right now in wikidata". All of those statements I've listed in that section are pulled from CURRENT statements that you can see in wikidata if you click on those items. Your comments reflect some of the many problems I have with this current state, which I've noted in the "Critique of current status" section. What I would really like your feedback on is the last section, "Proposed new ontology". Is that what you were referring to as "This is a very good proposition"? Anyway, if you could please review that more carefully and suggest any improvements or more concrete relationships there I would appreciate it. The "definition" of the items I think can just be assumed to be what the related wikipedia articles say about them (which may differ somewhat between languages). ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:45, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

@Snipre: I've added Y and Y indicators to the first section to show which statements I agree with and disagree with according to the new proposal. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:48, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Alternate Proposal

@TomT0m: I have added what I think you are proposing at the bottom of this page. Perhaps you can comment here if this reflects what you recommend? It still does represent a change from how things are currently represented in wikidata. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Moving forward

I'm going to proceed to fix the issues where both proposals agree - specifically:

• ⟨ isotope of neon (Q470437)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ neon (Q654)    ⟩
  Y and
  ⟨ isotope of neon (Q470437)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ isotope (Q25276)    ⟩
  Y
• (for example)
  ⟨ neon-24 (Q14662251)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ isotope of neon (Q470437)    ⟩
  Y but also
  ⟨ neon-24 (Q14662251)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ isotope of neon (Q470437)    ⟩
  Y

and also I plan to add:

• ⟨ neon-24 (Q14662251)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ neon (Q654)    ⟩

to organize that relationship, as it seems to me to be valid from both perspectives. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Note these changes have now been made. There are surely further adjustments needed, but this is at least a first step to get things somewhat in order. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)