Wikidata:Property proposal/maturity level

maturity level[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Not done

Description	maturity level of the subject
Represents	maturity level (Q115616331)
Data type	Item
Domain	items that are instances of work (Q386724)
Allowed values	items that are instances of maturity level (Q115616331)
Example 1	0 A.D. (Q161234)maturity levelalpha version (Q2122918)
Example 2	Extension:GraphQL (Q61649859)maturity levelalpha version (Q2122918)
Example 3	Svenska Akademiens Ordbok (Q1935308)maturity levelwork in process (Q357662)

Motivation[edit]

Pieces of work (Q386724) don't just come into existence completely finished, instead they gradually progress through various stages of completeness/maturity. For example for software there are the software release stages (Q115616232) and for W3C reports there are the W3C technical report maturity levels (Q31499211).

I think would make sense to introduce a property for this so that we can avoid expressing such statements via instance of (P31).

Suggested property constraints:

property constraint (P2302)single-best-value constraint (Q52060874)

Suggested aliases:

completeness level
completion
level of completion
development stage

--Push-f (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Conditional support How do you distinguish alpha software from beta software when these terms aren't precisely defined? I suggest using a much more limited set of allowed values, something like: work in process (Q357662), stable version (Q2804309) (i.e. v1.0 has been released), and feature complete (Q5439678) as well as the W3C levels. —Dexxor (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that it is up to us pass judgement on the maturity of works ... I think that this is left to the creators of the work ... only they know the ambitions of their own work and how complete the current state is. I realize that this should probably be explained in the property description. For example if a software developer chooses to describe their software as "Alpha" despite it having almost no bugs and more features than other software that is marketed as "stable", then so be it. E.g. 0 A.D. (Q161234) directly says "Alpha" on its website. And mw:Extension:GraphQL has status=experimental which quite clearly translates to "Alpha" when you look at mw:Template:Extension#status.

Note that I am no longer so sure about using the proposed property for W3C technical report maturity levels because I think these are better expressed via instance of (P31) because e.g. WCAG 3.0 (Q115616930)instance of (P31)W3C Working Draft (Q31499762) also correctly implies that WCAG 3.0 (Q115616930)instance of (P31)W3C Technical Report (Q115616700) (as per [1] a W3C Working Draft is a W3C Technical Report). But I still think that W3C Working Draft (Q31499762) could have some "maturity level" statement that would ideally also allow it to be compared with other documents e.g. RFCs ... but I haven't really looked into that yet how that could be modeled concretely ... but it would be nice to be able to compare the maturity level of specifications of different publishers. --Push-f (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "completeness" is a lot better than "maturity", since otherwise you'll get a lot of "maturity level" vandalism for instance of (P31)=human (Q5). Note also expected completeness (Q66364359), which applies to Wikidata items, and is also connected to this concept. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On hold Needs more work and thought put into it. --Push-f (talk) 12:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose first of all the name makes me think of something entirely else. why not instead use qualifiers on the release? also for many products this isn't well defined. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]