Shortcut: WD:PP/SCI

Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

From Wikidata
Jump to: navigation, search
Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Event Creative work Term Space
Place Sister projects
Economics Transportation Natural science Property metadata

See also[edit]


This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property
  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  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. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.

Creating the property

  1. Change status=ready on template to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done after 1 week by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See steps when creating properties.


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 2016/12.

Physics and astronomy[edit]

mount type[edit]

   Under discussion
Description The type of mount that an instrument (e.g., telescope) is mounted on.
Data type Item
Template parameter "mounting" in en:Template:Infobox telescope
Domain lens mount (Q20181008) and telescope mount (Q1205231)
Example South Pole Telescope (Q1513315)Altazimuth mount (Q677971)
Robot and gadget jobs Import from Wikipedia
Motivation

This would be useful for en:Template:Infobox telescope, where this is one of the few parameters not yet automatically drawn from Wikidata. Although I'm focused on telescopes, it may also be useful in other situations, e.g. lenses. Mike Peel (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Support. Also renamed, as we have a concurrent proposal for a property called "mount", for the names of people's horses. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question What's wrong with has parts of the class (P2670) See with SQID ? I'm a little unconfortable to create a specific property for this as it's seems just a specific case of this for telescopes. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:34, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Do you mean has as part (P527)? I've been assuming that was for instances where we have specific entries for parts of other entries, e.g. Jodrell Bank Observatory (Q1569783) has parts that are the different telescopes at the site, rather than for descriptive articles about the type of part used in the entity. Either way, my hope would be to use this to populate an infobox field, and I'm not aware of an easy way to access specific sets of values for a property rather than just fetching all the values of that property (in this case, how would we tell 'mount' apart from 'enclosure' if they were both values for the same property)? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
      • @Mike Peel: No, I mean has parts of the class (P2670) See with SQID (the initial name has become an alias). It's meant to link objects to kind of their parts. author  TomT0m / talk page 21:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
        • @TomT0m: Thanks for the clarification. Isn't that more along the lines of telescope (Q4213) -> telescope mount (Q1205231) rather than South Pole Telescope (Q1513315)Altazimuth mount (Q677971) though? i.e., the general case, rather than the specific details? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
          • @Mike Peel: Nope. We took the option to decide that part of (P361) and it sister were appropriate to link items of the same (metaclass, see metaclass (Q1924819) View with Reasonator See with SQID modelisation level : a physical object is part of another physical object (any physical object is eventually part of the universe), a class A of physical object is "part of" another class B of physical object means that an instance of A is a part of B. We created "has part of the type" to link physical object to class of physical objects, so that there is no ambiguity in the "part of" usage when we want to link physical object to both classes of physical objects and over physical objects. Hope it's clear and probably worth detailing somewhere on the documentation. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but as "mount type" so that it is also usable for camera lens mounts (e.g. Pentax K-01 (Q2069372)Pentax K mount (Q1063852)). Thryduulf (talk) 22:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    • That sounds good to me. I've tweaked the proposal name accordingly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Mixing lens mount (Q20181008) and telescope mount (Q1205231) looks like a bad idea to me. Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose --Succu (talk) 21:03, 15 August 2016 (UTC) PS: Maybe a better generalization is Tripod (Q683906). --Succu (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
    • @Succu: Why? Tripod is a different concept (think about why it's different from Monopod (Q1306072) - and then there's the different rotation axes, although then I think I might be answering my own question...). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I was about to create this, but I'm not sure if it ends up getting people into translation difficulties. While the English version nicely shares the name (also with "mount" (P:P3091) which some people could use instead), isn't there a risk that other languages need to mention both ("lens mount/telescope mount") which isn't particularly useful?
    --- Jura 14:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
    • From the limited corpus available at wikt:mount#Noun_2 and the interwikis, I don't think that this is going to cause more issue than the equivalent of English "mount for a lens or telescope". Thryduulf (talk) 21:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Hm. wikt:mounting states: 1 = Something mounted; an attachment. This is ambigoues. --Succu (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
      • Maybe mount (P3091) should be fixed to mounted by or something similar. --Succu (talk) 22:16, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
        • From the example, I'd say that the fact by a lenses is mounted by some kind of mount is redundant. I think we should stick with has as part (P527) as this property does not seem to really add value. author  TomT0m / talk page 05:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
          • @TomT0m: I'm not keen on has as part (P527), certainly for camera lens mount types, as both the camera body and the lens need to have the same property with the same value but the mount on a lens is the reciprocal of the mount on the camera body, not the identical part (think of it like a plug and socket). Having "mount type (camera body portion)" and "mount type (lens portion)" items would be required under that ontology but that would make querying unnecessarily harder. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
            • @Thryduulf: Interesting. I'm not sure I understand the difference you make between a camera and the telescope however as the mount seems to be a required part of a telescope and is not really changed after the telescope is built ... It seems to be different from a w:Zoom lens for a camera for example, which is an object on his own and can be plugged into some kind of mirrorless interchangeable-lens camera (Q209918) View with Reasonator See with SQID. I think you got something on the modelling of modular objects for which we don't have any guideline. To be clear : do you think telescope can be divided into "modular telescope" and "non modular telescope" like we can divide cameras beetween "interchangeable-lens camera" and "fixed-lense camera" ?
            • On the "making querying harder", the comparison is between ?telescope P:mount type ?mount_kind and ?telescope P:P2670 ?mount_kind. {{Query instances|w:telescope_mount}} (actually from the example the rigth property seems to be has parts of the class (P2670) See with SQID and not has part search) as you link a telescope to a kind of mount and not a telescope to a mount) so I think this is definitely not true not really a problem as this is a pretty common pattern. If you query a specific mount kind you can even spare the "query instance" pattern, at least if it has no subclasses. Actually there is even a keyword "a" in SPARQL property path I'm implementing in Module:PropertyPath - showcase Template:Show Path Items - so it seems to be a non problem to me. But that my opinion ;) author  TomT0m / talk page 07:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Would restricting this to telescopes remove the objections to creating this? If so I'll happily support that and propose a new property for camera mounts. Thryduulf (talk) 14:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

average yearly temperature[edit]

   Under discussion
Description temperature calculated by averaging the minimum and maximum daily temperatures over 30 years in a certain place
Data type Number
Domain instances of geographic region (Q82794) and instances of, recursively, its subclasses
Allowed values from -400 (minimum using degree Fahrenheit (Q42289), near to the absolute zero (Q81182)) to 350 (maximum using kelvin (Q11579), perhaps could be reached inside a volcano)
Allowed units the same as temperature (P2076), that is, degrees Celsius (Q25267), kelvin (Q11579) and degree Fahrenheit (Q42289)
Example Zaragoza (Q10305) → 15.5 °C (according to aemet.es, the Agencia Estatal de Meteorología (Q2826727))
Planned use firstly, importing data for some Spanish municipalities from the Agencia Estatal de Meteorología (Q2826727)
Robot and gadget jobs creating and regularly updating a world map (Q653848) that represents how these values are distributed across the planet
See also temperature (P2076), Köppen climate classification (P2564)
Motivation

Wikidata is lacking in climate data, and the average yearly temperature is a particularly relevant measurement. abián 15:57, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
I think that we have a problem.
  1. If we only create a property for the average monthly temperature, we won't be able to get the average yearly temperature if we don't have well-defined data of all months. In some cases, we know the average yearly temperature but not the average monthly one.
  2. If we only create a property for the average yearly temperature, we'll never be able to know the average monthly temperature.
  3. If we create both properties, we should never use both for the same Wikidata item. This situation could be controlled using a {{Constraint:Conflicts with}}.
There isn't a perfect solution. If we usually know the average monthly temperature, I would say 1. If we usually know the average yearly temperature but hardly ever the average monthly one, I would say 2. And, if there's no a "usual" situation, I would say 3. If I would have to choose right now, without being able to talk or to find out about this, I would choose 3. --abián 20:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Average monthly temperatures are way more informative than plain yearly average. Whether we create a specific property for this or not, we should think about how bring here monthly averages too, creating a coherent model including the later ones too.
1) Having a specific property for yearly averages and using generic temperature (P2076) 'qualified' with determination method (P459) for the monthly ones would be pretty awkward.
2) Having "average yearly temperature" and "average monthly temperature" using somehow the month as qualifier would make a little more sense. I don't know.
3) Having "average yearly temperature", "average january temperature", and "average february temperature" and... -> no.
Regardless all that, qualifiers as start time (P580) or end time (P582) should be added too. Strakhov (talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Option 2 makes much sense. :-) --abián 20:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
month of the year (P2922) would work as the qualifier in this scenario. Thryduulf (talk) 22:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
We'd need "average maximum temp." and "average minimum temp." too. Recently we approved precipitation height (P3036), but it seems pretty weird, as it represents a point in time, not an average. How about "average montly precipitation height" and "average yearly precipitation height"? Seriously, I think we need to apply here a more holistic view, not proposing one by one. Strakhov (talk) 17:09, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment would it be possible to consider instead a property that provides a database of temperatures for the location so that whatever monthly or yearly averages are wanted can be computed from it? It might have to be a URL to a dataset...? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
    The average yearly temperatures in a certain decade are fixed values, they won't change. However, external links will probably do, sooner or later. And, as only linking an external database wouldn't be enough to retrieve data from the Wikimedia projects, I think that it's better to directly save these data in Wikidata. --abián 09:16, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Well, sometimes old values do change thanks to reanalyses - or at least in certain datasets they wouldn't be perfectly fixed. In any case, what I think would be best here would be to be able to store the full dataset, say as a CSV file, in Wikimedia Commons. However, Commons doesn't allow CSV or other dataset files at the moment. If we store monthly averages directly in wikidata, then you have 12 statements per year - for some locations there are 150 years or so of data (perhaps more in England?) so you could have 1800 temperature statements on a location item in wikidata under this approach. That doesn't seem like a good idea to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Per Phabricator:T120452, tabular data storage is coming to Commons at some point. I'm not familiar with what the current state of work on it is. Thryduulf (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
  • They wouldn't be 1800 temperature statements in any case. These values are average ones, usually, in a 30-years period, not in a year. --abián 18:11, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

If I'm not wrong, these are the possible Wikidata properties concerning average temperatures and their dependencies.

Deriving average temperatures.svg

These dependencies can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to any kind of average climate data (average rainfall, average relative humidity, average number of frosty days, etc.).

Having read all comments, having done some research, and knowing that these data:

  • have an absolutely different availability depending on the relevance of the place, on the country and on the antiquity;
  • should always be used with qualifiers start time (P580) and end time (P582);
  • should always have a direct reference;
  • are historical and should never change since they are added to Wikidata;

... I propose that we exceptionally assume some degree of duplication with them and that we allow to store multiple declarations using these properties even for the cases that some of them could be derived from others.

For the case of monthly data, declarations should also necessarily have the qualifier month of the year (P2922).

In conclusion, concerning this property, "average yearly temperature", I still think that creating it would be a good idea. --abián 12:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

  • Given that it makes sense to fill for almost any place with a location, I think having a specific property for it is warranted. Symbol support vote.svg Support ChristianKl (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it would be good to have the monthly series of min/max/avg, but I don't think current quantity type and GUI is quite ready for this.
    --- Jura 23:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Please see Phabricator:T147049.
    --- Jura 09:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Biology[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Taxonomy for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Taxonomy}}
Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Biology for more information.

Calflora ID[edit]

   Ready <create>
Description item number for taxa in Calflora (Q18812401)
Represents Calflora (Q18812401)
Data type External identifier
Domain term / taxon
Allowed values string pattern
Allowed units [0-9]
Example Arctomecon californica (Q638217)9285
Formatter URL http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-calrecnum=$1
Motivation

Database of wild California plants, a good new ID for taxons. (tJosve05a (c) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose About: A third class website about the local flora of California (Q99). --Succu (talk) 19:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
We have similar "local" IDs, such as Flora of China ID (P1747). (tJosve05a (c) 19:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Nonsens: California (Q99) is only a state of the United States (Q35657) and well covered by USDA ID or FNA ID. --Succu (talk) 19:58, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
That's bolluck (yes, using same level of disussion here). Simply because another dattabase covers the same information, should not mean we should not include both IDs. Wikipedia might cover "all" encyclopedia subjects, but we still have Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417). And IMDb ID (P345) might cover all movies, that should not cause us not to have Swedish Film Database film ID (P2334). Simply beacuse other databases exists for the same topic, does not limit us to just include one. The more IDs the merrier. And California is a 'state', and therefore just as much a country as Scotland. (tJosve05a (c) 20:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
If have no idea what's the meaning of „bolluck“ is. Your example teachs me Arctomecon californica, a dicot, is a perennial herb that is not native to California and refers to USDA and FNA. Why should Wikidata include this kind of website? --Succu (talk) 20:17, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Which species are and aren't native in Califorina seems like useful information to me. In a case like http://www.calflora.org/cgi-bin/species_query.cgi?where-taxon=Polemonium+occidentale it also provides the bloom period which is information that's not currently contained in the Wikidata item. Symbol support vote.svg Support ChristianKl (talk) 18:32, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
So you expect that a local flora provides information about taxa that „aren't native“? The information about Anthesis (Q593803) of Polemonium occidentale (Q7209292) has no source. The whole entry seems to be based on ITIS. Why should we link to such websites? The ugliest part of this kind of website is when users start to create misinformed items based on them. --Succu (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
My local flora includes non-native species. Why would it not? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Why not read my objections and comment on this. --Succu (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I did; my post above specifically addressed your "So you expect that a local flora provides information about taxa that „aren't native“? ". I addressed your other, equally facile, objections in the comment where I expressed my support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
This seems to be a serious government project. Do you have a reason to believe that it contains misinformation? ChristianKl (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Hab ich das irgendwo behauptet? Ich sehe nur nirgends belegte Informationen, die über das was wir schon wissen hinaus gehen. --Succu (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
[Google tranlsation of Succu's comment: Did I asserted somewhere? All I see is nowhere documented information that go beyond what we already know beyond.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. The local distribution maps are of particular interest, and unlikely to be found in such detail on national or international websites. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This is marginal, but at least it has its own pictures. What is really hurtful is to see this compared to the Flora of China, which is a state-of-the-art multi volume work composed by specialists, offering information in depth. A hundred sites like this combined could not begin to compare to the Flora of China. - Brya (talk) 16:51, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. This site has a lot of useful information about the distribution of plants in California. Thryduulf (talk) 17:53, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info A better alternative is the Jepson eFlora (= „the foremost authority on the native and naturalized vascular plants of California”). See e.g. Arctomecon merriamii (mentions Arctomecon californica). --Succu (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  • By all means create a proposal for that. The two are not mutually-exclusive, nor are we limited to one property per topic (or geographic) area. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
We should limit ourself to high quality content, not web noise. If I find the time to analyze this site in more detail, I will make one. --Succu (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Butterflies and Moths of North America ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Description item number for taxa in Butterflies and Moths of North America (Q26879218)
Represents Butterflies and Moths of North America (Q26879218)
Data type External identifier
Domain term / taxon
Allowed values (species|taxonomy)\/[^\s\/]+
Example Aethilla echina (Q13231708)species/Aethilla-echina
Papilionidae (Q59905)taxonomy/Papilionidae
Formatter URL http://www.butterfliesandmoths.org/$1
Motivation

A database of taxas, more specifically Butterflies and Moths of North America. Could be useful and is an established database. (tJosve05a (c) 19:41, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Change datatype to URL. --Succu (talk) 19:46, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Pro URL fragments treated like external ids, ChristianKl? --Succu (talk) 21:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
I support the general property and don't care strongly about the datatype. I would favor external-id but not very much. ChristianKl (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
See e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417) for similar URL/external-id structure. (tJosve05a (c) 14:28, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
  • This seems okay, but it is still in its early stages, with lots of pages that are almost completely empty. It is promising rather than valuable. - Brya (talk) 10:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
  • GA candidate.svg Weak support. The sightings data seems to be the only offering at the moment that might be unique, if it is then it's worthwhile linking to the site. If that data is available elsewhere then maybe not. No opinion on the datatype. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Idaho Species Catalog ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Description item number for taxa in the Idaho Species Catalog by Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Q16939120)
Represents Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Q16939120)
Data type External identifier
Allowed values string pattern
Allowed units [0-9]
Example Abagrotis apposita (Q13220970)1474133
Holospira (Q3074524)10000
Formatter URL https://idfg.idaho.gov/species/taxa/$1
Motivation

A database of specis in Idaho, created by the Idaho Department of Fish and Game (Q16939120), making it a governental database whcih we should include. (tJosve05a (c) 19:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose: Minor local US database with less than 5,000 entries. --Succu (talk) 20:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support A US state government is not a "minor" institution. Idaho has an area of has an area of 83,569 square miles - around five times the size of the Netherlands, for example, and larger than Senegal, Cambodia, Syria, Uruguay, Tunisia, Nepal and many other countries. ~5000 entries is more than many of the databases we link to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Beyond comparing areas and an unprofen we did that before - What's your argument? --Succu (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support If someone searches for a lot of information about a species having the link might be helpful to them. ChristianKl (talk) 21:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
A lot of information about a species? - Found nothing of interest. --Succu (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose this is really scraping the bottom. What content is being offered here? No description. No original pictures (just something borrowed). Some links to dubious sites. - Brya (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose If the examples represent what is to be found in this database, I think there is not really any additional value. Lymantria (talk) 09:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Lymantria: No it is not. I just picked the first ID I saw, and a random "common" big number. There are much better examples, but I wanted to just show how th elinks was ment, not to show of the "best of the best" IDs. (tJosve05a (c) 21:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support the geospatial data on observations in Idaho, native status, temporal status and state conversation ranks seems like very useful information for anyone working on North American wildlife. Thryduulf (talk) 17:34, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Abagrotis apposita (Q13220970): Observed in County(s) No results found. --Succu (talk) 23:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

related horses[edit]

   Under discussion
Description horses related to the coach or to stable
Data type Item
Domain human (Q5), stable (Q1300510), …
Allowed values horse (Q726)
Example André Fabre (Q353931)Peintre Celebre (Q3374316)
See also mount (P3091)
Motivation

REDIRECT Wikidata:WikiProject Equines/Participants Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Horses

It's a property to indicate that a horse is related to this person (or stable, or maybe other items). Or maybe we can name this propety "related animals" that is more general. There is a third option, that is rename mount (P3091), but it's maybe not exactely the same subject. Tubezlob (🙋) 10:28, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion


Tsaag Valren (talk)
VIGNERON (talk)
Tigerboy1966 (talk)
Tubezlob (talk)
Montanabw (talk)
Glissando (talk)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Horses

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but only after we widen the proposal to related animals, so that we can, for instance, store pets with the new property. mount (P3091) would be a subproperty of the much wider one. Thierry Caro (talk) 22:13, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "Related" is too vague. Suggestion: provide proposals for specific properties. Example: a property for "cares for animal". --Izno (talk) 12:00, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Izno. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, this data would be far too unstructured. "Related" is too broad. --Yair rand (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. I think that the mandatory use of a qualifier is of course implied here. Thierry Caro (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    I think it's better to create several properties in this case. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, create a property "related horses" or "associated horses" is necessary to fill a big gap. It's necessary for the horsetrainers' or stables' infoboxes : using mount (P3091) is not relevant, because obviously horsetrainers don't ride their horses. Rename mount (P3091) can be a good option too, so it could be used for both jockeys and trainers. The idea is to associate someone with horses' career. Glissando (talk) 14:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
    No-one is disputing that there is data to be added. What is being disputed by e.g. me is that "related" is too broad. --Izno (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    There is presently a proposal to create an all-encompassing X-to-person property (here). I believe that here too we are thinking about getting an all-encompassing new property, this time an X-to-animal one. For the moment, it's called “related horses” but it can probably be renamed to “significant animal”. After this, we would be able to document any X-to-animal relation where X can be an event, an object and, obviously, a trainer. Of course, another solution is to just wait for that other X-to-person property to exist and then have horse → significant person → trainer established on items for horses. Whatever, this is I believe what we are debateing about. Thierry Caro (talk) 14:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with Thierry Caro. Maybe it's more logical to use “significant person” on the horse item than link the horse on the trainer item. But if we do this, we can't indicate stables. So should we create an other property “stable”? Tubezlob (🙋) 14:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
    One might now use significant person (P3342). It has just been created. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:28, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Related sounds to me too much like it's about family relationship. If the article is supposed to be broad *associated* would be a better label. I however don't see why the relationship between horsetrainers and horses should't get a more specific property. ChristianKl (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

maximum speed[edit]

   Under discussion
Description maximum capable speed of an object
Represents peregrine falcon (Q30535)
Data type Number
Domain taxon
Allowed units speed
Example peregrine falcon (Q30535) → 389 km/h
Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fastest_animals
Motivation

Currently there is no property for speed of an animal/object

Discussion

Josve05a (talk)
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Soulkeeper (talk)
Brya (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Achim Raschka (talk)
TomT0m
Tinm
MPF
Abbe98
Rod Page
Joel Sachs
Prot D
Michael Goodyear
PhiLiP
pvmoutside
Faendalimas
Lymantria (talk)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Taxonomy

What about speed (P2052) (with a suitable qualifier)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Which qualifier would be suitable? Maximum speed limit exists, but it applies to transport routes. Ayoungprogrammer (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Filling subject item this way doesn't make sense. ChristianKl (talk) 17:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

bite force quotient[edit]

   Under discussion
Description regression of the quotient of an animal's bite force in newtons divided by its body mass in kilogrammes
Represents Bite force quotient (Q4918821)
Data type Number
Domain species (Q7432)
Allowed units dimensionless
Example gray wolf (Q18498) → 136
Motivation

Usefull for describe species Tubezlob (🙋) 12:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

number of teeth[edit]

   Under discussion
Description number of teeth of the species
Represents tooth (Q553)
Data type Number
Domain species (Q7432)
Allowed values integers
Example Homo sapiens (Q15978631):
Motivation

Usefull for describe species Tubezlob (🙋) 12:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 00:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I would think that
    < human > has part search < teeth >
    quantity (P1114) See with SQID < 22 >
     would work without the need of a new property. To be more granular, I'd think of a more complex but expressive model like
    < human > disjoint union of (P2738) See with SQID < values as qualifiers (Q23766486) View with Reasonator See with SQID >
    of (P642) See with SQID < young human with Deciduous teeth (Q281524) >
    of (P642) See with SQID < human with definitive tooth >
    with a metaclass to sort out human development stages :
    < human with definitive tooth > instance of (P31) See with SQID < human development stage (tooth) >
     ;
    < human with definitive tooth > instance of (P31) See with SQID < human with only with Deciduous teeth (Q281524) >
    and
    < human development stage (tooth) > subclass of (P279) See with SQID < human development stage >
    Then the claim that states the number of teeth would belong to the development stage class. This allows both to model the sequence of stages later on and/or to model the gender differences (take the size : the mean woman size would belong to the "woman" class for example as the number of teeth of a young would belong to the relevant development stage).
    Also, I don't like this model but I must mention it for the sake of completeness : some people created a property "number of parts of an artwork" with quantity datatype with the type of parts as a unit. This could be used here. author  TomT0m / talk page 07:28, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't think that's a good way to model the data. There should be an item for the set of all teeth in the species and that set should have cardinality listed. preceding comment from ChristianKl - 12:29, November 29, 2016‎

normal respiratory rate[edit]

   Under discussion
Description normal number of respiratory cycles (inspiration and exhalation) per minute, measured in an individual
Represents Respiratory rate (Q754250)
Data type Number
Domain species (Q7432)
Allowed units breaths per minute
Example Homo sapiens (Q15978631) → 12 - 20 breaths per minute (adult (Q80994))
Motivation

Usefull for describe species. Tubezlob (🙋) 13:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment 12 - 20 breaths per minute is not a possible value for the number datatype. Do you plan to use qualifiers to indicate min und max value? --Pasleim (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment How do you plan to model that this is the breath rate in adults? ChristianKl (talk) 17:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Pasleim, ChristianKl: I don't understand everything with qualifiers. What are your propositions? Tubezlob (🙋) 17:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
    • @Pasleim: why not 16 +- 4 ? (probably should be indicated as such in the proposal though!) ArthurPSmith ([[User talk:ArthurPSmith|

Symbol support vote.svg Support--Andrawaag (talk) 10:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC) talk]]) 19:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

heart rate[edit]

   Ready <create>
Description speed of the heartbeat measured by the number of contractions of the heart per minute (bpm)
Represents heart rate (Q1073121)
Data type Number
Domain species (Q7432)
Allowed values integers
Example Homo sapiens (Q15978631) → 70±10 (resting heart rate (Q27891863), adult (Q80994))
Motivation

Usefull for describe species. Tubezlob (🙋) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

I don't know if we have to create the property "heart rate" with qualifier "resting heart rate (Q27891863)" (or others) or just create the propery "resting heart rate". Tubezlob (🙋) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

What kind of source would you use? ChristianKl (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: This info is sometimes in the Wikipedia article, or in other websites: [4], [5], [6], …
Tubezlob (🙋) 18:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I would prefer actual papers as source but I think those should be possible to be found so I Symbol support vote.svg Support. ChristianKl (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

minimum frequency of audible sound[edit]

   Ready <create>
Description minimum frequency of audible sound for this species
Data type Number
Domain species (Q7432)
Allowed values integers
Allowed units hertz (Q39369)
Example Homo sapiens (Q15978631) → 20 Hz
See also Wikidata:Property proposal/maximum frequency of audible sound
Motivation

Useful for describe species. Tubezlob (🙋) 18:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

maximum frequency of audible sound[edit]

   Under discussion
Description maximum frequency of audible sound for this species
Data type Number
Domain species (Q7432)
Allowed values integers
Allowed units hertz (Q39369)
Example Homo sapiens (Q15978631) → 20 kHz
See also Wikidata:Property proposal/minimum frequency of audible sound
Motivation

Usefull for describe species. Tubezlob (🙋) 18:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Biochemistry and molecular biology[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Molecular biology for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Molecular biology}}

Saccharomyces Genome Database ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Description Identifier for a genetic element in the Saccharomyces Genome Database (SGD)
Represents Saccharomyces Genome Database (Q3460832)
Data type External identifier
Domain items that are subclass of (P279) gene (Q7187) and found in taxon (P703) any item whose parent taxon (P171) is Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Q719725)
Allowed values S\d{9}
Example rRNA-processing protein UTP11 YKL099C (Q27539872) -> SGD ID -> S000001582
Source mygene.info
Planned use Will add SGD IDs to all genes of Saccharomyces cerevisiae S288c (Q27510868)
Formatter URL http://www.yeastgenome.org/locus/$1/overview
Robot and gadget jobs Will be performed by ProteinBoxBot (talk)
See also Mouse Genome Informatics ID (P671), FlyBase, WormBase
Motivation

Saccharomyces cerevisiae (Q719725) is a highly studied eukaryotic model organism. The SGD provides comprehensive integrated biological information about this species. The ID will be used to link S. cerevisiae genes in WikiData to their counterparts in the SGD. Gstupp (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Symbol support vote.svg Support Required for any work regarding yeast genomics. Sebotic (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support -NuriaQueralt (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Chemistry[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Chemistry for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Chemistry}}


IECIC 2015[edit]

   Under discussion
Description Inventory of Existing Cosmetic Ingredients in China (2015)
Data type External identifier
Domain cosmetic ingredients
Allowed values numbers
Example 2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid (Q417164) → 3926
Format and edit filter validation number
Source http://cirs-reach.com/news-and-articles/new-inventory-of-existing-cosmetic-ingredients-in-china-launched-(iecic-2015,-final-version).html
Planned use import the whole Inventory in Mix n'Match
Robot and gadget jobs no
Motivation

Having chinese labels on cosmetic ingredients, linking it with the European and American systems. Teolemon (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Putting it here to show the advantages:

2,6-pyridinedicarboxylic acid (Q417164) → 3926 (2,6-二羧基吡啶) (2,6-DICARBOXYPYRIDINE)

Discussion
  • @Teolemon: Seems reasonable, but the example given, "3926 (2,6-二羧基吡啶) (2,6-DICARBOXYPYRIDINE)", does not match the allowed values ("numbers") in the proposal. Please resolve this discrepancy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I would like the long name as the label to make it easier to understand for the viewer what the property is about. ChristianKl (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Then I think you probably want item datatype, with an item for the different ingredients. Thryduulf (talk) 01:03, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Saehrimnir
Leyo
Snipre
Jasper Deng
Dcirovic
Walkerma
Egon Willighagen
Daniel Mietchen
Andy Mabbett
Kopiersperre
Emily Temple-Wood
Pablo Busatto (Almondega)
Nothingserious
Antony Williams (EPA)
TomT0m
Wostr
Devon Fyson
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Chemistry

Medicine[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Medicine for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Medicine}}

muscle origin[edit]

   Under discussion
Description the anatomic entity to which the beginning of a muscle is anchored
Represents muscle origin (Q26708757)
Data type Item
Domain muscle (Q7365)
Allowed values anatomical structure (Q4936952)
Example Biceps femoris muscle (Q601016)Tuberosity of the ischium (Q7850869)

muscle insertion[edit]

   Under discussion
Description the anatomic entity to which the end of a muscle is anchored
Represents muscle insertion (Q26708759)
Data type Item
Domain muscle (Q7365)
Allowed values anatomical structure (Q4936952)
Example biceps brachii (Q201363)Radial tuberosity (Q719213)
Motivation

I want to have all the properties contained in the en.Wiki infoboxes for muscles in Wikidata. ChristianKl (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Then propose a set of properties. We'll discuss all at once. author  TomT0m / talk page 08:54, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
I added muscle insertion and origin together because that's a pair that belongs together. Theoretically it would also be possible to use a wider term here but I can't come up with a clear definition for a term that's broader. I create a distinct discussion for arteries as that concerns more than muscles. ChristianKl (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
Discussion


Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:CFCF
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Medicine. Thryduulf (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think it's useful to have properties for muscle origin and insertion, but they should allow to account for differences between species and between subpopulations within a species. To stick with the biceps brachii example, Functional adaptations in the forelimb muscles of non-human great apes (Q27649028) states: "The biceps brachii usually arises from the coracoid process of the scapula (short head) and the supraglenoid tuberosity of the scapula (long head) in primates (Sonntag, 1924; Miller, 1952; Kimura & Takai, 1970; Swindler & Wood, 1973; Youlatos, 2000). However, in the orangutan specimen Oaf the long head was monoarticular, arising from the top of the lateral side of the humerus, just below the bicipital groove. The short head originated as normal from the coracoid process of the scapula. The origin of biceps brachii in the gorilla specimens Gsm and Gam also differed in that the tendon of the long head originated from below the supraglenoid tuberosity on the dorsum of the scapula." --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:23, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Daniel's statement is compelling. If this is to be used then from the beginning there ought to be a plan to note for which species it applies. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
We have applies to taxon (P2352), although that would need broadening from just toxological doses. Alternatively a new qualifier "applies to organisms" could be created, which would allow values of species, genera, or other grouping e.g. "male <type of animal>" if required. Thryduulf (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
I would be in favour of decoupling the definition of applies to taxon (P2352) from toxicology — such an "applies to taxon" property could be useful for many kinds of information more generally, and phenotypic information in particular, from cases like eye color (P1340) (currently human-only) to the incubation period proposals below.
This would not address the inter-individual variability within a species, e.g. as per Anatomic Variations Found on Dissection of Depressor Septi Nasi Muscles in Cadavers (Q27681992), which states: "Three variations were found in muscle insertion points: periosteal, orbicularis oris, and floating. Forty-four percent of the muscles were inserted into the periosteum of the maxilla (n = 36); 39% of muscles were inserted into the orbicularis oris muscle (n = 32); and 17% were diminutive or floating (n = 14)."
Another thing I am wondering about is whether we should go for something like "enthesis location" for this property to handle ligaments and muscles in the same way (perhaps with a qualifier applies to part (P518) for the latter, to be set to muscle origin (Q26708757) or muscle insertion (Q26708759)). --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

legal status (medicine)[edit]

   Under discussion
Description legal status for pharmaceutical drugs, e.g. general sales list for paracetamol in the UK
Represents legal status (medicine) (Q26715005)
Data type Item
Domain pharmaceutical drug (Q12140)
Example acetaminophen (Q57055)General sales list (UK) (Q26715239)
Motivation

Match property from Wikipedia Infobox. Domswaine (talk) 17:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question do you anticipate one instance of this property for each jurisdiction? Would values like "prescription only" or "over-the-counter" qualified with applies to territorial jurisdiction (P1001) be better? I support the idea of a property for the legal status of a drug (probably not just a medicine though, as what is classed as a medicine and what as a (recreational/harmful) drug varies between jurisdictions and within over time), but I don't want it restricted to just one or a handful of jurisdictions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I would also prefer a property that's qualified with applies to territorial jurisdiction (P1001). I don't see why the word medicine should be used. Controlled Drug or controlled substance seem to be better names for me.ChristianKl (talk) 10:06, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Agree with jurisdiction qualifier and expanding to non-medicinal drugs. Still think proprietary item values for each jurisdiction would be required as drugs policy far from internationally uniform with some nations having several levels, e.g. general sales, pharmacy only or prescription only for medicinal drugs in the UK. These could be, however, a subclass of more wide reaching values, such as "prescription only" or "over-the-counter". Domswaine (talk) 11:38, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Would there be perhaps benefit in a property for a broad category (e.g. "over-the-counter", etc) for easy international comparison and a second for the detailed restrictions and requirements (or lack of) (maybe an item for "legal status of $drug in $country" that contained details?)? My thinking is something comparable to the manner of death (P1196) and cause of death (P509) pair. Thryduulf (talk) 14:34, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I would advice against using a broad "over-the-counter" in a way that isn't subclassed. If you take the phrase literally many countries allow the selling of those medicine by putting them on shelves. Other don't and require that the pharmacist who sells the drug speaks to the patient. Whether or not businesses that aren't pharmacies can sell the product also depends. ChristianKl (talk) 10:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
OK, the actual category names will need agreeing but I think the general categories are something like this "completely illegal", "prescription only, special license/authority needed to prescribe" (, "prescription only, all/most doctors can prescribe", "available from pharmacist (person) only", "available in pharmacy (type of shop) only", "available without restriction", "not regulated". Do those seem OK to you? Are more needed? Thryduulf (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Is there an argument that having multiple, potentially overlapping, generic values would end up being more complicated and less representative than proprietary, country specific, values.Domswaine (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The values shouldn't be overlapping (which is why it is needed to discuss what the values are) but are sort or hierarchical, e.g. I have in the past been prescribed by a doctor throat sweets that are available on supermarket shelves. The idea is to have a generic value per jurisdiction for easy and high level comparison between jurisdictions AND a separate property with the specifically detailed value per jurisdiction that is required for detailed study of one jurisdiction but is difficult to compare across jurisdictions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:27, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
`General sales`, `pharmacy medicines`, `pharmacist only medicines`, `prescription medications` and `controlled drugs` seem a good place to start for the generic labels. For the propriety labels for each jurisdiction, `general sale list (GSL)`, `pharmacy medicines (P)` and `prescription only medicines (POM)` are the classifications for what are judged to be medicinal drugs in the UK with controlled drugs categorised into one of `class A`, `class B` and `class C`. Domswaine (talk) 18:22, 05 September 2016 (GMT)
The example provided, Paracetamol, illustrates some of the challenges here. Where you can buy this drug in Sweden, partly depends on the package. 1000 mg demands a prescription from a physician. To get 500 mg you have to visit a drug store. 125 mg can be found in any approved shop. Suppository versions of this drug can have other rules. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Would a quantity qualifier be sufficient here? Domswaine (talk) 18:39, 09 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't think so, as for paracetamol I would expect quantity to refer to the number of tablets. For example in the UK "the largest pack size of paracetamol that shops without a pharmacist working in them can sell is 16 tablets, but pharmacies can sell packs of 32 tablets." [7], which I'd represent with a quantity qualifier using tablet (Q206077) as the unit. For the situation Innocent bystander raises (which also applies to ibuprofen in the UK according to [8]) I'd expect a qualifier called "strength", "dosage", "active ingredient amount" or something like that, which afaict doesn't currently exist. Thryduulf (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, and it may also apply to "usage". I know one drug against mycosis (Q464067) that can be bought without prescription for treatment for your feet. But you need a prescription anywhere else. Some drugs can be prescribed by a dentist or a vet. And some requires a prescriptions from a specialist in some specified medical discipline. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @innocent bystander: do you think use (P366) works for this use case? I'm going to separately propose a "strength" property that can be used for this and also for things like alcohol. Thryduulf (talk) 13:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
It probably does. We have not solved the oral/rectal-problem yet, but that is doable. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 15:19, 6 November 2016 (UTC)


Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:CFCF
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Medicine Are there additional opinions about this property? ChristianKl (talk) 11:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Thanks for the ping. Some other uses which are related are food additives, agriculture chemicals, dietary supplements, and alternative medicine. There are some places which group each of these with medical regulation and some places which treat these separately. Food additives might include colors, preservatives, and wax coatings; agriculture might include pesticides, herbicides, and veterinary drugs like livestock growth hormones and antibiotics; dietary supplements can mean vitamins or physiologically active non-allopathic treatments; alternative medicine can mean a dietary supplement or any sort of drug. Any of these might have a mention in their own schedule. I would want the available labels to be inviting for sorting any of these. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

medicine marketing authorisation[edit]

   Ready <create>
Description medicine is allowed by the EMA to be marketed for the treatment of
Data type Item
Domain drug-disease interaction (Q26720101)
Allowed values substance authorization status (Q26720715)
Example Levetiracetam for epilepsy treatment (Q26720719)EMA authorised medicine for human use (Q26720713) Source: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/002051/human_med_001531.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124
Source http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/includes/medicines/medicines_landing_page.jsp&mid=
https://open.fda.gov/ (has to be queried)
Motivation

The information about drug approvals for therapeutic interventions is very important to many stakeholders. It's complex information and thus easier to be displayed on a separate drug-disease interaction (Q26720101) instead of being displayed on the page of a drug. ChristianKl (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:CFCF
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Medicine

Discussion
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Terrible model imho. I'd prefer an item for each type of authorization - USA public health authorization, ... . Then associate each of those items to its jurisdiction. You don't get the qualifier. Symbol support vote.svg Support after those changes. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:48, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay I changed this property to be about the EMA medicine marketing authorisation. The EMA publishes data that can be used to fill the property. The FDA at this point in time doesn't. I emailed the FDA and they verified that they don't provide this data.ChristianKl (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Fortunately it seems that the FDA provides it through the API on https://open.fda.gov/ even when they don't provide it for normal users, so we could import it. ChristianKl (talk) 17:50, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with TomT0m. Getting a dataset which verifies these relationships would be difficult. If datasets did exist, then I expect that they would apply only to a certain country and from a certain date. Two different countries may even define the medical condition to be treated differently, or say that a treatment is for the same condition but in different circumstances. This would be difficult to manage. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
At the moment I don't think that a dataset exist that contains information from multiple countries. It would be a chance for Wikidata to be the first dataset that does this.
As far as definition of illnesses go, I'm currently not sure whether the EMA actually deals in definitions. I wrote them a mail to ask to them to clarify. Fortunately there are treaties that suggest that all countries in the WHO have to use ICD codes to classify illnesses so there's hope that in practice the same definition get's used. ChristianKl (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why the instance of drug use is itself the Wikidata item. It seems analogous to the concept of "inserting nails" being a use of a hammer, and I like the idea of tracking all the ways that anything might be used, but I am not sure how this should look in Wikidata. It is an interesting idea but I have trouble thinking through how this works. Blue Rasberry (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
The analogy would be "inserting nails with a hammer" being an item. It might be a valid value for "main subject" of an article that deals with how to use a hammer to insert nails but as long as the item isn't needed it doesn't have to be created.
In the absence of having a drug-disease iteraction item, the information would have to be stored both in the drug item and the disease item and be duplicated.
It would also be more complicated to enter specific start/stop times for approvals.
Having a separate item allows for better information storage. ChristianKl (talk) 09:44, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: An alternative would be to use qualifiers who are suitable to represent some kinds of n-ary relationships. I guess you refer however the lack of ways to reverse the statements whithout using SPARQL - this is likely to be resolved in not so much time as the devteam is currently working on how to deal with queries on Wikidata.
On you modification : I was more thinking on something like
subject > authorization search < EMA authorization >
, with
< EMA authorization > décerné par search < EMA >
< EMA authorization > for juridiction search < European union >
... Maybe also something to link the authorization (class) item to the (class of) action it authorizes in the jurisdiction - prescription by doctors, selling the stuff.~ author  TomT0m / talk page
It's not binary. There are four classes. Authorized, Withdrawn, Denied and Requested. Additionally there's potentially 'no value' which might be interesting to fill for FDA approved drugs where no approval is sought with the EMA.
It's possible that there will be soon a another class of "Conditional marketing authorisation"
I think it's generally useful to keep complexity down. It might be possible to lists a lot of information on the item on a drug with n-array statements but that makes everything more complicated. In computer programming there the general principle of keeping functions as short as possible. It helps to keep the structure of a program simple.
It would be great to be able to point reasonator at a drug-disease interaction and get a list of all drug approvals and all relevant clinical trials. ChristianKl (talk) 11:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: The "withdrawn" case, in the case of Wikidata, should be dealt with a "end date" qualifier. I guess the "refused" statement could also be dealt with a generic class "EMA refused medicine"
< the refused cure > instance of (P31) See with SQID < EMA refused medicine >
 or with a "no-value".
Complexity can only be measured by comparing the different models in depth and how complicated it's to use them, and is hard to use as an abstract concept. In particular, we don't have to map the EMA concepts with a 1-1 correspondance, we can use wikidatas concept - the classes they define can probably dealt with instance of (P31) and don't have to get a specific property, as we have a property to deal with classes. On the other hand, the concept of authorization of medecine is not Europe centric. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:53, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I think it's valuable to have a property for marketing authorization. I think it's valuable if the property can model "refused" as a different state as "no value". If I live in the US and take an FDA approved medicine than it tells me something different when the EMA refused to approve it in contrast to the EMA not having ruled on it.
The concept isn't authorization of medicine but authorization of marketing of medicine for a therapeutic area. Doctors are allowed (authorized) to use medicine off-label.
It's a difference concept from whether a substance is legal and the two can be easily confused by laypeople. I'm also not sure whether the split works the same way everywhere in the world. ChristianKl (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
@ChristianKl: Browsing http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/default.htm a litte bit it appears yes, FDA approved drugs for some diseases as well. It's the same concept. I think we totally can create classes "FDA unauthorized" to deal with rejection. I guess if we actually want to refer to authorization processes we could label stuffs as "authorisation request". This would allow us to create an item for the authorization process and to link to the clinical studies put to the file for example. author  TomT0m / talk page 14:33, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
I edited the concept again. Are you okay with the new way? ChristianKl (talk) 15:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. author  TomT0m / talk page 18:32, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:CFCF
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Medicine Does anyone have any input? ChristianKl (talk) 11:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Not sure, confused I asked about the nails earlier. I do not know what to say. Can I ask for further discussion? Should all of these have Wikidata items?
  1. Levetiracetam for epilepsy treatment (Q26720719)
  2. Levetiracetam for epilepsy treatment (Q26720719)
  3. Keppra for epilepsy treatment (a brand name, assuming that it is relevant to note brand differences)
  4. Racetam (Q1649216) for epilepsy treatment (the class of drug)
  5. 5mg Keppra brand tablets for epilepsy treatment in Caucasian males age 18-55 (sometimes there lots of notes)

I am not sure what is reasonable to expect and I really do not know what is appropriate. I am not looking for a long explanation and do not need much convincing, but I am still not sure why an item should be the intersection of "drug" and "use". Is there a Wikidata precedent for combing objects and use, like "ink for pens" versus "ink for newspapers"?

Thanks for experimenting and discussing here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:55, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what difference you imply between 1 and 2.
Currently we don't have separate items for Keppra and Levetiracetam in the first place in Wikidata ontology. I think we should have separate items for those. I would be happy with both 2 and 3.
There a Wikidata precedent for having items for the borders between two countries that aren't just statements in country A and B. ChristianKl (talk) 11:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

minimal incubation period in humans[edit]

   Under discussion
Description the minimal time between an infection and the onset of disease symptoms in infected humans
Represents incubation period (Q193566)
Data type Point in time
Domain infectious disease (Q18123741)
Allowed values hour, day, week, month, year
Allowed units hour (Q25235), day (Q573), week (Q23387), month (Q5151), year (Q577)
Example dengue fever (Q30953) → 3 days, according to Dengue fever and dengue hemorrhagic fever: A review of the history, transmission, treatment, and prevention (Q27680555)
Source medical and scientific literature
Planned use on items about diseases caused by infectious agents (e.g. subclasses of virus (Q808)), possibly as a qualifier to has cause (P828) statements; this could inform epidemiological models
Robot and gadget jobs hopefully at some point, but there are no obvious databases to pull the information from
See also maximal incubation period in humans
Motivation

The incubation period (Q193566) is an essential parameter of an infectious disease and for any measures against it. It is usually given as a range, so I think it is useful to have it split up into two separate properties for the minimum and maximum, similar to what has been done for temporal range start (P523) and temporal range end (P524). In principle, it could be placed on items about either the infectious agent or the disease caused by it, but the two are typically linked through has cause (P828) statements, for which these two properties could then also act as qualifiers. Neither of the two proposed properties makes sense without the other, so I suggest to discuss them together.


Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:CFCF
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Medicine Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - though should the "in humans" bit of this be a qualifier or default and allow other animal hosts to be used with appropriate qualifiers? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • I would prefer the "in humans" bit expressed by a qualifier. ChristianKl (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure. I assumed that most of the medical properties were specific to humans, and there was no need to design them to accommodate use for other species. If that is the case, then I support. If it is already routine to plan for these properties to be robust enough for reuse, then perhaps the other commenters are right to request a change here. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but agree that 'in humans' should be a qualifier. --I9606 (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
  • @Daniel Mietchen: Would you be alright with not having "in humans" in the name? ChristianKl (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

maximal incubation period in humans[edit]

   Under discussion
Description the maximal time between an infection and the onset of disease symptoms in infected humans
Represents incubation period (Q193566)
Data type Point in time
Domain infectious disease (Q18123741)
Allowed values hour, day, week, month, year
Allowed units hour (Q25235), day (Q573), week (Q23387), month (Q5151), year (Q577)
Example dengue fever (Q30953) → 8 days, according to Dengue fever and dengue hemorrhagic fever: A review of the history, transmission, treatment, and prevention (Q27680555)
Source medical and scientific literature
Planned use on items about diseases caused by infectious agents (e.g. subclasses of virus (Q808)), possibly as a qualifier to has cause (P828) statements; this could inform epidemiological models
Robot and gadget jobs hopefully at some point, but there are no obvious databases to pull the information from
See also minimal incubation period in humans
Motivation

The incubation period (Q193566) is an essential parameter of an infectious disease and for any measures against it. It is usually given as a range, so I think it is useful to have it split up into two separate properties for the minimum and maximum, similar to what has been done for temporal range start (P523) and temporal range end (P524). In principle, it could be placed on items about either the infectious agent or the disease caused by it, but the two are typically linked through has cause (P828) statements, for which these two properties could then also act as qualifiers. Neither of the two proposed properties makes sense without the other, so I suggest to discuss them together.


Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:CFCF
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Medicine Daniel Mietchen (talk) 16:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Question As a general principle, isn't it usual (and better) to have one property, with two values qualified as minimum and maximum? Or does the potential use of these properties as qualifiers preclude that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:08, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know what is usual or better in this context, but I asked myself basically the same question and thus looked around a bit for similar properties. I found gestation period (P3063), which is just one and does not seem to have been used to indicate a range, and there are temporal range start (P523) and temporal range end (P524) that come as a pair with the clear purpose of serving to indicate ranges. I would be fine with generic qualifier properties for "minimum"/ "maximum"/ "median" etc. of gestation period (P3063)-style systems, but I guess that discussion is going to be a bigger one, and I'm interested in getting something to work soon — ideally by tomorrow, since I am currently attending a hackathon, where epidemic modelers would like to build on this kind of information (I have a few more property proposals in the pipeline), which is not easily available elsewhere. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    As just stated in the muscle origin/ insertion discussion, I think it would be good to decouple the definition of applies to taxon (P2352) from toxicology, which would also allow it to be used with a more general "incubation period" property, so we would not need one (or two, as per above discussion) specific to humans. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
    There is also duration (P2047), but this would have to be added to incubation period (Q193566) or subclasses thereof, and I am not sure whether that's a good approach. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    In any case, if we go for a property that is not specific for humans, we'd have to distinguish between intrinsic incubation period (Q27684128) and extrinsic incubation period (Q27684135). --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Hmm - in general quantity values naturally specify a range with the +- so for something that takes say 2 to 8 days to incubate, you could specify 5 +- 3 and do this with just the one property. I think that would be a reasonable option here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Not sure A case is made to use a single range rather than different properties for maximum and minimum. I am not sure what is best. I will confirm the usefulness of the number. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support along with the "minimum" version. I discussed this in person with Daniel - there are several issues in treating this with the usual quantity range approach: conflation of uncertainty with a real observed range of values, and the fact that the average period is not halfway between the minimum and maximum (though that suggests a need for a third property for the average). ArthurPSmith (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but 'in humans' out and represent as a qualifier --I9606 (talk) 20:16, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

basic reproduction number[edit]

   Under discussion
Description number of infections caused by one infection within an uninfected population
Represents basic reproduction number (Q901464)
Data type Number
Domain infectious disease (Q18123741)
Allowed values positive rational numbers
Allowed units none
Example Ebola virus (Q10538943) → 1.51±0.01 for Guinea (Q1006), according to Estimating the Reproduction Number of Ebola Virus (EBOV) During the 2014 Outbreak in West Africa (Q21128647)
Source medical and scientific literature
Planned use on items about infectious agents (e.g. subclasses of virus (Q808)), this could inform epidemiological models; usually reported on a per-country and per-year basis, so should probably have country (P17) and point in time (P585) as a qualifiers
Robot and gadget jobs hopefully at some point, but there are no obvious databases to pull the information from
Motivation

The basic reproduction number (Q901464) is another parameter often used in epidemiological modeling. Its value captures the potential of an infectious agent to spread, which is an important piece of information that has to be taken into account when considering how to prevent outbreaks or how to respond to them. The information can typically be obtained from individual papers. There seems to be no place where it is collated systematically, so having it on Wikidata would be especially valuable.


Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:CFCF
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Medicine. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 08:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Could you give us examples of papers with "basic reproduction number"? The example "universe (Q1)Earth (Q2)" seems wrong. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
    Thanks for checking — it's fixed now. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 09:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - though I wonder if there is possibly a more generic name that could have wider applicability (meme spreading, nuclear reactions, ???) ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:43, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I think having the property to be targeted on diseases is fine. ChristianKl (talk) 20:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Question It seems like for this property to be meaningful it has to be matched with both a geographical location and a period of time, right? In the example it is matched to a geographical location. Is some kind of match essential, or does the number inherently have value without further explanation? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:06, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

case fatality rate[edit]

   Ready <create>
Description proportion of patients who die of a particular medical condition out of all who have this condition within a given time frame
Represents Case fatality rate (Q1720706)
Data type Number
Domain disease (Q12136)
Allowed values 0-100%, i.e. 0-1
Allowed units %
Example invasive pneumococcal disease (Q27685544) → 0.03 for ages under 18, up to 0.20 for ages above 80%, according to Epidemiology of invasive pneumococcal infections: manifestations, incidence and case fatality rate correlated to age, gender and risk factors (Q27685556)
Source medical and scientific literature
Planned use on items about diseases, possibly with qualifiers to capture things like age groups as in the example; this could inform epidemiological models
Robot and gadget jobs hopefully at some point, but there are no obvious databases to pull the information from
Motivation

The Case fatality rate (Q1720706) is a basic parameter in public health and epidemiological modeling. It is often expressed as a range, so the discussion about how to model ranges over at minimal incubation period in humans and minimal incubation period in humans is relevant here. It is also frequently expressed in terms of age groups or on a per-country/ per-year basis, so multiple qualifiers should be expected.


Tobias1984
Doc James
User:Bluerasberry
Wouterstomp
Gambo7
Daniel Mietchen
Andrew Su
Peter.C
Klortho
Remember
Matthiassamwald
Projekt ANA
Andrux
Pavel Dušek
Was a bee
Alepfu
FloNight
Genewiki123
Emw
emitraka
Lschriml
Mvolz
Franciaio
User:CFCF
User:Lucas559
User:Jtuom
Chris Mungall
ChristianKl
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Medicine. Daniel Mietchen (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Mineralogy[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Mineralogy for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Mineralogy}}

Informatics[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Informatics}}

File format magic numbers[edit]

   Under discussion
Description magic numbers used to incorporate file format metadata in form of a string coded hexadecimal number (usual encoding, "0" = 0 and "F" = 15, space ignored). Qualifiers can specify an offset and a padding value for this number.
Data type String
Template parameter Template:Infobox file format (Q10986167) magic number parameter
Domain file format (Q235557)
Example Graphics Interchange Format (Q2192) -> 47 49 46 38 39 61
Source Gary Kessler's File Signatures Table
Planned use I plan to add magic numbers to Wikidata items for the corresponding file formats.
Motivation

Magic numbers are constant numerical or text values used to identify file formats. Having this data in Wikidata will help make file format information more complete. Magic numbers are part of how we verify file signatures and are used in forensic computing. This is also a parameter of the Infobox:File format. It will be possible to transfer all of the magic numbers stored in infoboxes to Wikidata if we create this property. There is also this list [List of file signatures] that we could transfer to Wikidata. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 15:43, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Qualifier[edit]

(Additions to the proposal by TomT0m)

Offset[edit]
   Under discussion
Description qualifier of "magic number" for the number of bytes before the magic number to be searched in a file
Data type Number
Example Modelling the format "RVT" "
[512 (0x200) byte offset]
00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 	  	[512 (0x200) byte offset]
........
RVT 	  	Revit Project File subheader
gives
< RVF > magic number search < 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 >
offset search < 512 >
.
Source Gary Kessler's File Signatures Table
Planned use qualifier for the property above

Talk[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Symbol wait.svg Wait. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:31, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but there are several other kinds of "magic numbers" so I think the name needs to be more descriptive - maybe "file format magic numbers"? Also, with string value isn't there some room for ambiguity in how the numbers are to be represented here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:18, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Good point. If the numbers are string coded hexadecimal, this should be made explicit. The spaces seems also totally irrelevant and adds burden to parse. I can also see in the files that spec also specifies offsets : [11 byte offset] and [512 (0x200) byte offset]. This could be handled better than with an unspecified string format in a structured data projects. Also see if the string can't encode the non-hex version such as directly the string, for example in
    46 41 58 43 4F 56 45 52 FAXCOVER
    2D 56 45 52 	        -VER
    
    it should be possible to store more efficiently directly "FAXCOVER-VER", maybe an offset with a qualifier, and maybe a "padding value" also with a qualifier, something like
    < format > magic string search < FAXCOVER-VER >
    offset search < 0 byte >
    padding search < 0 >
    . author  TomT0m / talk page 18:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
    • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Thanks for this feedback. I revised the label for the property proposal. It looks like we will need a hexadecimal option as well as an ascii option. I welcome suggestions of how to further refine the proposal. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It will be very useful for data regarding file type identification. CC0 (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could this property be specified to contain values which are Perl Compatible Regular Expressions (PCRE), allowing for more advanced signatures to be specified if desired? For example, "\x89PNG\x0D\x0A\x1A\x0A" for the PNG family, "\x00\x01\x00\x00Standard Jet DB" for Microsoft Access MDB, "GIF8[79]a" for the GIF family, etc. The advantages are: for ASCII-only-signatures (GIF), it's human-readable. For signatures containing binary/non-ASCII data (PNG), it's in a readily usable format (C/C++ strings for example) and for optionally complex signatures, it's in a format ready to use with a PCRE compliant parser. Pixeldomain (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The offset could be identified in the PCRE expression, as an example: "(?s)^\x00\x01\x02.{38}ANSWERTOEVERYTHING" would look from the start of the file for \x00\x01\x02 then skip 38 bytes to offset 42 in the file where it would look for "ANSWERTOEVERYTHING". More advanced expressions could look at bytes from the end of the file (ZIP archives have a central directory tacked on the end of the file), perform negative look-aheads, etc. Whilst there is extra complexity with PCRE, it does not have to be used, and the fall-back is a simple C/C++ string representing binary data. Pixeldomain (talk) 03:09, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Also worth taking a look at is how the magic file of the "file" command stores file type signatures: https://github.com/file/file/tree/master/magic/Magdir Pixeldomain (talk) 03:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Also take a look at the FIDO PRONOM database at https://raw.githubusercontent.com/openpreserve/fido/af3fc47791855ad7b955eb4272411113bfcff54d/fido/conf/formats-v88.xml which uses PCRE to define signatures for each file type. Pixeldomain (talk) 04:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

maximum size or capacity[edit]

   Under discussion
Description maximum allowed/supported/usable (data) size with applies to part (P518) as qualifier.
Data type Number
Domain File systems, Storage media
Allowed units Bits, bytes, KiB, KB, ...
Example FAT32 (Q2622047) → 2,147,483,647 B
applies to part (P518)computer file (Q82753)

FAT32 (Q2622047) → 2 TiB

applies to part (P518)volume (Q1125653)
Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_popular_optical_data-storage_systems
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape-Open
Planned use Populating certain file system items with data regarding maximum file/volume size allowed.
Motivation

It will be very helpful to process data when choosing a file system, etc. Was randomly looking up a file system (FAT). CC0 (talk) 23:54, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Dachary
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Azertus
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of Wikiproject Informatics

  • Perhaps better as a generic "maximum size or capacity"? Could then be qualified with any suitable unit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Added that one as well. This one is for single files. Thank you for your suggestion :) . CC0 (talk) 14:39, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
  • but this is the maximum size for a single file, not the maximum size or capacity of the disk itself - but again I think a suitable qualifier should be sufficient to indicate it is for single files. How many different types of filesystems are there that we think we would need this property for? It seems kind of limited in applicability... ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Thryduulf (talkcontribslogs). Modified the property proposal. CC0 (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC).

@ArthurPSmith (talkcontribslogs) and @Pigsonthewing (talkcontribslogs), thank you for your suggestions; the property proposal has been modified appropriately.

Symbol support vote.svg Support ok, this looks like a good solution to me. Thanks for updating it! ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Qualifier[edit]

volume size (withdrawn due to extensibility of the original proposal and suggestion; see above)[edit]
   Under discussion
Description maximum volume size supported by file system
Data type Number
Domain File systems, Storage media
Allowed units Bits, bytes, KiB, KB, ...
Example FAT32 (Q2622047) → 2 TiB
Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems
Planned use Populating certain file system items with data regarding maximum volume size supported.
Thank you, Thryduulf (talkcontribslogs). Modified the proposal. This one is more general - and can be extended with qualifiers for even purposes beyond file systems, like storage media (DEC tapes, CDs, DVD Single/Doble layer, Single/Double side, etc. CC0 (talk) 09:00, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Geology[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Geology for more information.

Geography[edit]

Maths[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Mathematics for more information. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Mathematics}}

All sciences[edit]