Wikidata:Property proposal/Jabber channel

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Jabber chat[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization

   Under discussion

Motivation[edit]

Like e-mails (proposed standard track) and IRC (experimental), XMPP is a proposed internet standard. We have e-mail address and IRC channel properties that store respectively 811 and 452 IRC channels. Wikipedia has over 20 pages about XMPP topics and most of them could contain XMPP addresses in their infoboxes. In general, many projects use multi-user chat (Q1521783) to discuss and people share their public XMPP (Q188951) addresses, so it seems appropriate to me to have properties that expose this kind of data, like we already do with similar address IDs.
Ogoorcs (talk) 02:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

I think it could be time consuming to write the needed multiple syntax checks for all possible kind of user/group/channel/mailing list addresses a generic IM account would have in no time; look at all the subject item of this property (P1629) values.
In IM software one-to-one conversations and public/private group chats are usually considered different features; proof of that is that we have email address (Q1273217) (e-mail address (P968)) and Internet Relay Chat (Q73)(IRC channel (P1613)) but not a mailing list property.
My proposal aims to be compatible with the existing property structure, so we could have for group chats:
IRC channel (P1613) subject item of this property (P1629) Internet Relay Chat (Q73),
Internet Relay Chat (Q73) described by source (P1343) RFC 2810: Internet Relay Chat: Architecture (Q47286131)
Jabber channel subject item of this property (P1629) multi-user chat (Q1521783)
multi-user chat (Q1521783) described by source (P1343) XEP-0045: Multi-User Chat (Q74448104)
And for user addresses:
e-mail address (P968) subject item of this property (P1629) email address (Q1273217)
Jabber ID (Q2714181) described by source (P1343) RFC 5322: Internet Message Format (Q47485091),
Jabber address subject item of this property (P1629) Jabber ID (Q2714181)
Jabber ID (Q2714181) described by source (P1343) XEP-0045: Multi-User Chat (Q74448104).
Ogoorcs (talk) 21:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata as trusted search engine for IRC channels (and potentially any XMPP channel)
@Ogoorcs: Mmm, you're right, channels and individual accounts should be different properties, I didn't realized of that. But I think this property shouldn't be used only for XMPP, but any IM protocol:
Conversations (Q17122691) IM channel xmpp:conversations@conference.siacs.eu / protocol (P2700) XMPP (Q188951)
<a website> IM channel tg://resolve?domain=gdrivemovielink or t.me/gdrivemovielink / protocol (P2700) Telegram (Q15616276)
Same with a property for IM individual accounts. --Tinker Bell 00:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
But you would have to deal with multiple syntax filters and constraint and in any case protocol IDs will have to be described in detail now or later. After all one just need to create Qs with the sources and complete the above template. Also I do not know what others would think of this. I agree with reserve.
Ogoorcs (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
You can do this:
IM channel subject item of this property (P1629) chat room (Q574577)
IM account subject item of this property (P1629) <IM account address>
I'm following the model used by properties like source code repository (P1324), that groups similar services in one property, like Git (Q186055), GNU Bazaar (Q812656), Mercurial (Q476543) and Subversion (Q46794), instead of creating four properties like "git repository", "Bazaar repository", "Mercurial repository" and "Subversion repository". --Tinker Bell 06:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support You convinced me (but I still fear that someone could veto it on the basis that has a too broad domain).
Ogoorcs (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think someone could oppose for that. Anyway, in this case, Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Tinker Bell 05:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
  • BA candidate.svg Weak oppose Personally think that this property is not very demanding, usually the official website of the organization will provide relevant contact information, no need to re-create an property. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Catherine Laurence:, Having addresses directly on Wikidata contributes to make it a more useful repository of data; that makes other software better, too. IRC channels have been made easily discoverable on Wikidata and I've come to really appreciate this feature, so I would like to have it extended to multi-user chat (Q1521783), too. Check the thumbnail to see what I am talking about.
Ogoorcs (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ogoorcs: I don't think this will be very helpful to the reader, and I think the proposal for this property is a bit out of scope because it is similar to the yellow page and not useful information for the reader. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:14, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Catherine Laurence: We already store 811 people email addresses and 452 IRC channels; there are lots of Wikipedia articles about XMPP (Q188951) related topics so I do not find strange to have a property to store XMPP group chats addresses, it is the same as the github profile property, with the difference that Jabber chats are just a proposed internet standard since 2004, not a website identifier.
How do you respond to the fact that we already delivers for IRC channels and emails what I am trying to achieve here for Jabber chats?
I have tried to use Wikidata as yellow pages in these years with a fair amount of success and nothing wrong happened in the meantime. More data can only make the database more useful. Dozens of useful addresses were recorded and so would happen for those few dozen XMPP groups that will be linked here as users discover the property exists.
About the fact that you believe it would not useful to have such an id property, I literally showed you (now with subtitles) how it is more helpful to have contact information directly stored on Wikidata than not having them. I would like an answer to that.
Ogoorcs (talk) 03:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
WD:NOT indicates that it is out of scope to treat Wikidata as a yellow page at this stage. Catherine Laurence discussion 14:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@Catherine Laurence: the fact that Wikidata is not the Yellow pages can't deny the fact that one can already build them with it or use it as such efficiently; only someone who lives in an area with low data coverage or who does not know better would deny it at this point in time. In any case there are no Jabber group chats addresses nor opensource software projects into Yellow pages, so the comparison is not so quite accurate. Now to repeat myself, the aim of this property is to mention useful notable XMPP chats, as it has already been done with IRC channels and emails (which are an internet standard, too) in all these years without any problems. In any case the yellow pages argument is absurd because we won't have more than 100-200 values in a few years.
Ogoorcs (talk) 14:47, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Tinker Bell
FabC
Jasc PL
putnik
Dhx1
Tris T7
Peb Aryan
lore.mazza004
Rc1959
Premeditated
Iwan.Aucamp
LiberatorG
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics --Tinker Bell 01:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)