Shortcuts: WD:PP/COMP, WD:PP/Computing

Wikidata:Property proposal/Computing

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Computing Lexeme

See also[edit]

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Search if the property already exists.
  2. Search if the property has already been proposed.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Read Wikidata:Creating a property proposal for guidelines you should follow when proposing new property.
  6. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below by editing the two templates at the top of the page to add proposal details.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the creation of the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See property creation policy.

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/04.

General[edit]

Go package path[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionpath of a Go package
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1GoPacket (Q115156585) → github.com/google/gopacket
Example 2Gin (Q96279007) → github.com/gin-gonic/gin
Example 3quic-go (Q105941555) → github.com/lucas-clemente/quic-go
Sourcehttps://pkg.go.dev
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Formatter URLhttps://pkg.go.dev/$1

GZWDer (talk) 10:29, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

julle (talk) wd-Ryan (talk/edits) Arlo Barnes (talk) WT20 (talk) Zblace (talk) applsdev RampantSpirit (talk)

Notified participants of WikiProject Websites Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MichaelSchoenitzer
dachary
Metamorforme42
Ash Crow
OdileB
John Samuel
Jasc PL
Daniel Mietchen
Iwan.Aucamp
SM5POR
Moritz Schubotz

Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics/Software Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:17, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

so there is really no point in us duplicating that information. Links to https://pkg.go.dev/ would of course be handy but these should be created automatically with a user script for any software that is programmed in (P277) Go (Q37227). I am happy to develop such a userscript :) --Push-f (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is this always repo address? Some seems not, e.g: k8s.io/kubernetes, google.golang.org/protobuf, gorm.io/gorm Laftp0 (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes and https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/go-gorm/gorm indeed also work. https://pkg.go.dev/github.com/protocolbuffers/protobuf-go interestingly enough does not work ... probably because it declares module google.golang.org/protobuf in its go.mod file.
I still think that this is something that should be addressed by pkg.go.dev ... it shouldn't be too hard for them to store such module directives and automatically redirect from the repository path to the right documentation URL. Push-f (talk) 16:16, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess some modules work with repo address are outdated versions that don't contain go.mod as pkg details say "The Go module system was introduced in Go 1.11 and is the official dependency management solution for Go." Laftp0 (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, both kubernetes and gorm do also set module in their go.mod. So I really don't know what's causing protobuf-go to not work with the repo path. --Push-f (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think k8s.io/kubernetes and github.com/kubernetes/kubernetes are not the same. Maybe you can realize the difference. I guess kubernetes added go.mod after it's implemented, so module name changed after added. Against it, protobuf has go.mod since its first version. Laftp0 (talk) 02:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right ... I still think that this is something that pkg.go.dev could implement ... I just asked Drew DeVault (Q64995795) about it[1], he has his own pkg.go.dev alternative (https://godocs.io/) and I figure that he'll be more responsive than the Go developers ... let's see. --Push-f (talk) 09:09, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, that might be better to identify a module. Laftp0 (talk) 09:53, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Push-f:, any update/response from Drew DeVault. Or any changes in your opinion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GZWDer:, could you please fulfil the minimum requirements. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

serves resource[edit]

   On hold
Descriptionresource served by the subject; unless otherwise qualified with protocol (P2700) the protocol is derived from instance of (P31) (e.g. HTTP for instances of website (Q35127))
Data typeItem
Domaindata item instance of website (Q35127), web application (Q189210), web user interface (Q1981057) or web API (Q557770) (other classes can be added as needed, this constraint is just to allow for efficient inferring of the default protocol)
Example 1
Example 2
Example 3

Motivation[edit]

This proposal seeks to introduce a way to model the HTTP routes of web interfaces (be they web user interfaces or web APIs).

The semantics of HTTP routes are very much of interest for:

  • web search engines which want to understand the function of a particular web page
  • web crawlers which want to crawl the web for resources of a specific type, or want to avoid crawling resources of a specific type, or want to crawl resources of a specific type more/less frequently than resources of another specific type
  • hyperlinking, creating a hyperlink to a specific resource within a specific context
    • this enables other useful properties e.g. adding references to git commits only via their commit hash, see Wikidata:Property proposal/changeset
    • this enables very useful userscripts e.g. you could have a button that automatically takes you to the API endpoint for the specific resource you're currently viewing
  • evaluating compatibility between web interfaces
  • providing compatibility e.g. if you self-host a cgit (Q28974765) instance but decide that you want to switch to a self-hosted GitLab (Q16639197) instance. If the semantics of their most important routes were modeled in Wikidata, there could be a script that automatically generates an nginx (Q306144) config for you to provide server-side redirects from the old cgit routes to the GitLab routes (or vice versa if you were to switch in the opposite direction)

Description[edit]

To achieve that this proposal proposes one property for data items and three accompanying qualifer-only properties.

The core idea is that URL suffix formatter can be used to qualify under which URL suffix the resource is served, as with formatter URL (P1630) $1 can be replaced with the identifier of the resource.

Since resources are often hierarchical we also introduce a parent resource qualifier with the following semantics:

  • Xserves resourceappleURL suffix formatter/apples/$1
  • Xserves resourceorangeURL suffix formatter/oranges/$1parent resourceapple

means that oranges are served at /apples/$appleId/oranges/$orangeId.

Our system is already powerful enough to model the majority of HTTP routes of many web interfaces, however there are two things we currently do not cover:

  • some HTTP routes cannot modeled in this way, e.g. imagine that the route instead was /apples/$orangeId/$appleId
  • some resources have multiple kinds of identifiers (e.g. a Phabricator project has a slug (Q99601940) as well as a numeric identifier (Q93868746))

We can address both concerns by introducing a fourth and last qualifying property "URL parameter", with the following semantics:

The names of the placeholders do not matter, what matters is that they are in the same order as the "URL parameter" qualifiers.

Cheers, Push-f (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. Notified participants of WikiProject Websites. --Push-f (talk) 00:33, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support, great proposal. I do wonder if we're stretching the limits of what Wikidata can represent, especially when it comes to the ability of human editors to build the knowledge subgraphs when modeled to such detail and complexity. This should not be a blocker for adopting this proposal, mind you, but we should probably consider having detailed examples and maybe even a diagram or two to help editors understand how these properties are meant to be used. Otherwise we may end up with a situation similar to the modeling of books which is famously inconsistent in Wikidata as it clashes with people's intuition about what a book is.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Waldyrious (talk • contribs).
    Thanks! Yes I agree about these properties needing thorough documentation; on top of that I will probably develop a user script to view the routes implied by the proposed properties :) --Push-f (talk) 09:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Very solid and thoughtful proposal. However, your examples show that storing this information in Wikidata and consuming it can be kinda awkward. Consider creating your own specialized database that we can link to from Wikidata ;) Dexxor (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks :) Wikibase isn't easy to self-host[2] and this is without getting into setting up a Blazegraph (Q20127748) server so that you can still query the data with SPARQL and setting up some third-party login to lower the barrier to entry ... but even then I think people are more likely to contribute to Wikidata than some niche database.
    Besides with the right tooling I think this proposal could really address a fundamental problem of Wikidata, which is that we don't want to create a bunch of properties for every website/common HTTP route out there. Have you looked at my changeset proposal? There @Dexxor: argued that "changeset formatter URL suffix" is too specific, so I withdrew that idea in favor of this more reusable and powerful approach. I guess another example is also my Wikimedia Phabricator project proposal where @Arlo Barnes: has argued that a more general property would be better.
    So I think the solution is to develop specialized tooling for these properties in Wikidata (e.g. user scripts for contributors and libraries/bots for consumers), rather than outsourcing that data somewhere else entirely.
    --Push-f (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On hold Apparently qualifiers of data type item are unordered, so the "URL parameter" idea doesn't work. The best alternative I can think of would be encoding the parameter class IDs directly into the URL suffix formatter, e.g. ${Q6} ... however encoding item IDs into string obviously isn't ideal. --Push-f (talk) 02:30, 27 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

URL suffix formatter[edit]

   On hold
Description(qualifier only) under which URL suffix the resource is served; "$1" can be automatically replaced with the identifier of the resource; if the template requires additional parameters they may be specified as other placeholders matching the regular expression \$[a-z]+, in this case the data types of the parameters must be qualified with "URL parameter"
Data typeString
Domainmay only be used as a qualifier for "serves resource"
Example 1see #serves resource
Example 2see #serves resource
Example 3see #serves resource
See alsoformatter URL (P1630)

See #serves resource for the motivation and discussion.

parent resource[edit]

   On hold
Description(qualifier only) indicates that this resource is a subresource of the given resource (and that the "URL suffix formatter" of the given resource comes before the "URL suffix formatter" of this resource)
Data typeItem
Domainmay only be used as a qualifier for "serves resource"
Example 1see #serves resource
Example 2see #serves resource
Example 3see #serves resource

See #serves resource for the motivation and discussion.

URL parameter[edit]

   On hold
Description(qualifier only) meant to qualify the data types of placeholders in "URL suffix formatter" values; if there are several URL parameters this qualifier must be specified multiple times in the same order that the URL parameter placeholders appear in the "URL suffix formatter" value
Data typeItem
Domainmay only be used as a qualifier for "serves resource"
Example 1see #serves resource
Example 2see #serves resource
Example 3see #serves resource

See #serves resource for the motivation and discussion.

Wikimedia Phabricator project PHID[edit]

   On hold
DescriptionPHID of the Wikimedia Phabricator project for the subject
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1Wikibase Repository (Q21679301) → vumw5jyyw4r3fv52k34y
Example 2Extension:Wikibase Client (Q21679293) → 46yqqwzqvnxmbabmz3tc
Example 3Pywikibot (Q15169668) → orw42whe2lepxc7gghdq
Formatter URLhttps://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/?project=PHID-PROJ-$1&statuses=open()&order=newest#R
See alsoissue tracker URL (P1401), Wikimedia Incubator URL (P9748)

Motivation[edit]

Most MediaWiki software uses https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/ as its issue tracker. Currently the issue trackers are linked via issue tracker URL (P1401), which is however a bit messy since there are many different ways to link to a project on Phabricator:

While project slugs are the most human-friendly of these, project slugs can change and one project can have multiple slugs, making them suboptimal for a Wikidata identifier property. So the choice remains between the numeric ids and the PHIDs. I think PHIDs are the clear winner because the Phabricator API to search tasks maniphest.query only accepts PHIDs for projects and we don't want to force data consumers to do a project.query lookup to translate the id to the PHID every time they want to query the tasks of a project.

How to find the PHID? If you are at a project page, click on Open Tasks and then you can find the PHID in the URL.

A bot could be written to import these identifiers from https://www.mediawiki.org/, because it has the project slugs in various templates:

Cheers, --Push-f (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

is fake of[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe kind (class) of elements this item falsifies / is a fake for
Representsfake (Q22959676)
Data typeItem
Domainforgery (Q1332286) feint (Q427117) forgery (Q1332286) … all kind of fakes
Allowed valuesclass (Q16889133)
Example 1
⟨ play-action pass (Q1734020)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ → Search ⟨ rush (Q744865) ⟩
Example 2
⟨ Feigned retreat (Q5441540)  View with Reasonator View with SQID ⟩ → Search ⟨ withdrawal (Q1760704) ⟩
Example 3
See alsoforgery after (P1778) View with SQID simulates (P12328) View with SQID
Distinct-values constraintyes

Motivation[edit]

We need a model for modeling fakes, forgery or feints, this is an attempt to advance in this field. Not top priority of course but nice to have I think. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  •  Support I can see how this would be useful in a number of entries. --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Some overlap with simulates (P12328)? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Wd-Ryan I did not know about this property, thanks. Maybe yes, but the "trickery/deception" dimension seems absent of "simulate". Nobody would say that a special effect in a movie.
    There also seems to be a fundamental difference between something that simulates a situation (truck simulator) in a virtual world and something that is intended to replace by fulfilling the same function, and a virtual simulation with no consequence in the real world besides learning and entropy increase. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't think there's enough difference from simulates (P12328) to justify a new property. That the purpose of a particular simulation may be to trick or deceive can be stated separately, with e.g. has goal (P3712), where relevant. Likewise for the physical/virtual nature of the simulation, which will in most cases be established by the basic membership properties. Swpb (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Swpb I think the "artificial heart" is not a question of physical nature or not, it's a question of "fulfills the role of", it's not at all like an exercise. It's the same difference as a drône that would fulfils the same role as a soldier in a battlefield, we would not say that the drone "simulates" a soldier. It would just be a weapon.
    for objectif du projet ou de la mission (P3712) I think usually just using instance of (P31) / subclass of (P279) is usually enough, for example play-action (Q1734020) is just a kind of pass play disguised.
    I also still thinks that the (trickery) intention is not trivial to infer. If it's a subclass of "fake" it may be queried like this but … objectif du projet ou de la mission (P3712) : trickery is convoluted and not a better model, and also there might be a lot of inconsistent ways to express this information. Maybe using several properties in an unclear way to convoy a well identify nuance in the meaning to spare the existence of a property is not a good tradeoff. author  TomT0m / talk page 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In your reply to wd-Ryan, it seemed to me you were looking to use a physical vs. virtual distinction to separate this proposal from simulates (P12328). If you want to express that something is intended to take the role of something else, I'd use replaces (P1365). As to the purpose of trickery, you're right that P31/P279 will generally be enough to infer trickery, without resorting to has goal (P3712) – but to me, that strengthens the case against a new "is fake of" property, since the presence of a P31/P279 statement implying trickery removes the need to express that nefarious intent with a property that is otherwise the same as simulates (P12328). To me, the reason why you are simulating something – to replace something, to teach someone, to trick someone, etc. – is a separate bit of information from what you are simulating, and trying to capture them in the same property is not good modeling. Swpb (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb No, I don't think so. Think that you can fake something in a sport simulation video game … It's actually two different dimensions.
"Replaces" is definitely not a good property for that. Imagine if a fake doctor replaces your real doctor for a while ? author  TomT0m / talk page 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With replaces (P1365), I was thinking of your drone/soldier example. At this point I don't understand what case you are making for this proposal; I need to see specific examples where you think the existing properties are not sufficient. Swpb (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't see the distinction between this and simulates. Almost all (if not all) types of fakery in a sporting sense is when someone simulates doing something, but does something else. (Hidden ball trick, diving, etc.) Have you got any examples of something where "simulates" doesn't cover it? Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lee Vilenski : my problem is actually, how do you convey the trickery sense with simulates. A fire truck simulation is not a trickery, but could also use the property you propose. But the intension behind the truck simulation is totally genuine. That's the nuance I want to convey and I did not see yet a simple way to express it.
    A more convoluted way could be with queries and inferences : if the action is a subclass of run play but simulates a pass play and "an action cannot be at the same time a run play and a pass play" … (we can do the last one using "disjoint union of") or by classifying as both a subclass of "fake / trickery" and "run play" at the same time, but none of these models are simple.
    (also reading about this hidden ball trick it seems it can involve the simple masking of the player to confuse the defense about where it is going, it's then not necessarily a trickery about simulating a kind of action by another kind of action, it can be the same action in a different direction ? You simulate a pass but you actually do a pass ? ) author  TomT0m / talk page 14:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

model for and its inverse property modeled by[edit]

   open
Descriptionwhat the subject is a conceptual or scientific model/theory for
Representsmodel (Q1979154)
Data typeItem
Domainitem (instance of/subclass of conceptual model (Q2623243) or formula (Q976981) or model (Q1979154) or theory (Q17737)… )
Example 1data model (Q1172480) → data (Q42848)
Example 2database model (Q267136) → database (Q8513)
Example 3abstract data type (Q827335) → data type (Q190087)
Example 4Navier–Stokes equations (Q201321) → fluid dynamics (Q216320)
Example 5Peano axioms (Q842755) → non-negative integer (Q28920052)
Example 6hybrid system (Q2665508) → cyber-physical system (Q1120057)
See alsohas role in modeling (P6530), computes solution to (P2159), approximation algorithm (P1171), is the study of (P2578) Property sometimes abused for this relationship : is the study of (P2578), for example used in the relativity theory item to link to spacetime.

Motivation[edit]

There are many conceptual models and formulas that are a model for some thing. It would be nice to be able to express these relations with a simple property instead of having to use awkward statements such as abstract data type (Q827335)subclass of (P279)mathematical model (Q486902)of (P642)data type (Q190087).

There is also has role in modeling (P6530) but that does not express the same relation "has role in modeling X" does not mean that it's a model for X ... but rather that it is a part of a model for X.

Other properties (by User:Fgnievinski like represents/represented by are misused to represent this relationship.


Previously
a 2016 proposal ; a more recent one (this one is basically a reopening of the previous more examples, from the discussion)
User:Push-f, the creator of the last proposal, withdrew the proposal with reason I withdraw my proposal in favor of using statements like Xhas use (P366)scientific modeling (Q1116876)of (P642)Y, and the discussion was closed by a property creator asking for a new one, which is this one. There were only support the property.

I reopen because the model proposed by Push-f is using of (P642) View with SQID qualifier on a usage Search statement which is deprecated, and because I think this is a genuine relationship, very common and many examples that deserves its own property. It's also simpler, note that the model does not seem to be much used only 4 results to a corresponding query.

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, YULdigitalpreservation, ArthurPSmith, Andrew Su, Salgo60, Andrawaag: @Yair rand: (also pinging the participants to the has role in modelling discussion as I discover this was the initial proposal and it is related to [the OBO discussion https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/288] that discussed more specific properties. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

discussion[edit]

Tobias1984
Snipre
Physikerwelt
Pamputt
Petermahlzahn
Jibe-b
Restu20
Daniel Mietchen
TomT0m
ArthurPSmith
Mu301
Sarilho1
SR5
DavRosen
Danmichaelo
Ptolusque
PhilMINT
Malore
Thibdx
Ranjithsiji
Niko.georgiev
Simon Villeneuve
Toni 001
Marc André Miron
DePiep
RShigapov
CarlFriedberg
Crocodilecoup
Mkomboti
Amorenobr (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valverde667 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fgnievinski

Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

Participants of the old discussion ping : @Push-f, The-erinaceous-one, Tinker Bell, Fgnievinski:

Being a proposer you don't have to vote for your own proposal. Please note that having your own vote does not give you an advantage when creating a property. See WD:PCC. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma Please consider the circumstances, this is actually a reopening of an old proposal I actually voted for. It's recreated, actually, after the property creator closing which is actually questionable because the initial proposer closed it with a bad idea and the proposal actually had only support. Creating a regular proposal on Wikidata is usually an arduous journey, please don't be a cold actor making this actually more difficult. We have very few reviewers in a lot of cases, and this is the third attempt for this important and legitimate one. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No/reject. I'm responding to the posting over at WPPhys. My knee-jerk reaction is that this is a terrible idea, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and/or science in general. If you're going to link spacetime to general relativity, then what happened to Newton or Cartan or MOND? Are you pronouncing all these other theories of spacetime to be bad/wrong/rejected? What about Kaluza Klein? Is your space-time 5-dimensional, with hidden dimensions? Kaluza-Klein did their work in the 1920's; Einstein himself spent decades on it, its a foundational concept in string theory, but you're going to reject it because you've got some preconceived notion about spacetime that matches what the folks on reddit talk about? As to the equations themselves: they also apply to fluid mechanics, and to configurations of lattices, e.g. the black hole solution (schwarzschild solution) is a soliton, that is, a Lax pair, (Belinski-Zakharov), so are you going to link Lax pairs to gravitation? Or to water (KdV eqn) or to nuclear physics (say, Skyrme model)? The QCD confinemnt of the skyrme model, the quarks can be unconfined by shrinking Einstein spacetime to about 3-4 times the size of a nucleus, at which point, the Skyrmion kind of melts and releases all the quarks: confinement is gone, due to high local space-time curvature. So is nuclear physics all about space-time, now? Yes, I've written a tirade here, but the point is to show that classifying relationships in the sciences are necessarily vague and tenuous when they're correct, and inhibit forward progress, becoming dangerous when enforced by some cultural committee. 67.198.37.16 17:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can link several theories to one kind of objects, this is not a monopolistic claim, no problem with that, it's just a claim about what theory is about what kind of object is all. You can link both Newton and MOND and Cartan to "spacetime" if that's relevant. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will you link space-time to 5-dimensional spacetime? There are several kinds of 5D spacetimes: the KK one, mentioned above, but also the recent results on 5D black holes with naked singularities and Cauchy horizons. They're two different kinds of 5D spacetimes. Then of course, the affine lie algebras are 26-dimensional spacetimes, unless they're fermionic, in which case they're 10-D. The obvious solution is to say "if wikipedia article X has a wikilink to topic Y in it, then X and Y are related". But to try to then say "the relationship between X and Y is that of theory and model" runs afoul of the details. 67.198.37.16 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(p.s. looking at above examples: the descriptive set theory people and the reverse mathematics people might not like your link of peano axioms to the non-negative integers. Seems like a flawed understanding of what the peano axioms are trying to do, and what they are actually used for, in day-to-day applications: how people actually use them, and what they are good for, as opposed to the ostensible "thing they describe": They describe a fragment of set theory; that fragment has a model which happens to include the non-negative integers. But what matters are the results of model theory, and not that one possible model just happens to be the non-negative integers.) 67.198.37.16 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Peano axioms are used to define the integers, in a formal model, and addition, etc. The fact that there are other models is not a problem for this property, as already said before.
As for your previous point, this property is not intended to solve all the problems nor to model every possible relationship like "this article as a link to that other one", this is nonsense. But yes, N-dimensional theories about spacetime may be link to space and time, what would precisely be the problem ? author  TomT0m / talk page 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(anyway, the sentence about the links on Wikipedia pages seems to imply you are kind of against the whole Wikidata idea, so … why coming here commenting, upset about me talking about this on enwiki ?) author  TomT0m / talk page 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could somebody explain why the property 'objet of a theory' is not sufficient to link a theory to an object  ? The idea of model (in science) has been much discussed in history of science and it is historically strange to apply this for instance to the Peano axioms. Perhaps, one should change the name of "object of a theory" to "important object in or for a theory", but "model" for me describes a very specific type of link (perhaps too specific for a property in Wikidata, as it may lead to debates, depending on one's epistemologic views). Thank you in advance. --Cgolds (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cgolds What property are you referring to precisely is the study of (P2578) (it's intended to link academic fields to their objects) ? has role in modeling (P6530) (which may fit but I find the example stranges, it links gene items to deseases) ? I can't find anything searching that label.
    I understand that in "model theory" in maths indeed this is kind of reversed, as the "specification" (the axioms) and the objects that have theses properties (natural numbers for peano axioms) are called "models" of the theory, so yes, the term seems to be a bit off but this is the exception ? If we look at the article about « fr:Modèle scientifique », although there are not many sources, kind of reflects what is usually understand as a scientific model nowdays, and it's in that sense I think it's used.
    For I dug a bit, because the "gene - disease" relationship seems way to broad, a gene is not by itself a model or a theory for a disease in any sense, that's why they renamed it : see this related discussion on the OBO ontology in link with the discussion on Wikidata about the proposal. They are talking about more specific relationships if needed, in relationship with Wikidata, and I think that's exactly related to this proposal. A gene may indeed "has a role" in modeling a disease, but it's usually far from being a whole model by itself ? They broadened the label from "is model of" to "has role in modelling" out of practical problems it seems, because it was in practice or they wanted to use it like that. I think Wikidata is larger so I think we could benefit from clarity. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TomT0m I was indeed refering to objet de la discipline (P2578), but if I understand you well, this property means "what is the object(ive) of the discipline" (and it would have been better to call it "subject" then :), not "an important object of the discipline". Or is your problem with "discipline" instead of "theory" ? It is true that "model" is not very appropriate for mathematics, but even in physics you may have a lot of discussions (see above !). For the (general) relativity theory, I understood that it modelizes gravitation more than spacetime (although of course the issue theory vs model(ization) is already a difficult topic). We are looking for for "object playing an important role in" or something of the kind. Cgolds (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cgolds yes, this is this meaning, "objet" have both meanings this may be ambiguous (I think I proposed the property, and it was labelled study of but properties have a way of living their life in Wikidata, I can't fully tell what happened after). I make a difference between the process of studying something and the body of knowledge this process produces. Theories and models are output. If physics eventually everything is bound to model the real world if you take a realistic point of view, which I think we should do. Something else like "nominalism" is self-referential, in practice we reflect visions and descriptions of the world, but … how different visions are tight to each over ?
    I don't think it's a problem to model both gravity and spacetime, why should this be exclusive. Although yes, "spacetime" if you look at the wikipedia articles like en:spacetime is actually defined as a class of model in which space and time are intimately tight. But in the real world it can be translated as "if we take two clocks in two referentials that moves relatively fast from each other you cannot get them synchronised, you have to take into account there speed relative to each other (and the mass repartition, for GR) to make sense of it.
    There is also the distinction of a theory and a model, a theory can be entirely abstract but if you want to make a model of the world, say a climate model, you have to take measures and datas from the real world to feed the equations, of course. Is it a real problem here ?
    "object playing an important role in" really feels like a catch all almost meaningless relationship. The question is "but what role is this ? What kind of importance" ? (oh, it's too hard and philosophical, so we gave up). If you can link almost anything to almost anything it's probably a bad idea, I think we should avoid such properties. We have a couple of them like facet of (P1269) View with SQID that people sometimes use when they don't know what to use. I think it's not really good because we don't then make the effort of asking ourselve if there is a more precise and purposeful relationship that could be created.
    To take the example of a climate model and the earth climate "has a role in modeling" is really an understatement. "simulates" would be a much better choice. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a real problem with this, because space-time and gravitation do not play the same role in (general) relativity theory. Would you say that Newton's theory modelizes space (or time for that matter) ? Space and time (or later space-time) is a constituent/a fundamental element of the theory, but the theory does not modelize (or theoretize or simulates or ... whatever is your philosophical viewpoint on the issue) it. A climate model modelizes the earth climate, but neither the earth nor the PDEs at the basis of the model (if it is a model with PDEs). Perhaps we need indeed two properties, something like "modelizes" (gravition, earth climate etc) and something like "is a constituent of" or "a constitutive element of" or something of the kind (space-time, PDE, ...). It would be nice to have some other inputs, would not it  ? Cgolds (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎Gentoo Guru ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionhttps://github.com/gentoo/guru this is the official community repo of Gentoo Linux project. We already have the same for Arch https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P4162
Representssoftware (Q7397)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1OpenRefine (Q5583871)→[gui-apps/openrefine]
Example 21Password (Q2150861) → [gui-apps/1password]
Example 3pnpm (Q118939881) →[sys-apps/pnpm-bin]
Number of IDs in source1618 (I took this number from https://repology.org/repository/gentoo_ovl_guru and manually check by `find . -name metadata.xml
Formatter URLhttps://github.com/gentoo/guru/tree/master/$1
Single-value constraintyes
Distinct-values constraintyes

Motivation[edit]

This is official property of Gentoo Linux project - I think this is important to be able to specify it.

Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 13:09, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Computing&oldid=2135226579"