Shortcut: WD:PP/SCI

Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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

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. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, 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 2018/07.


Physics/astronomy[edit]


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. To notify participants use {{Ping project|Biology}}

crop[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionplant or plant product grown in this field or farm or for this experiment
Data typeItem
Domainfield (Q188869), agricultural experiment (Q52146473), farm (Q131596)
Allowed valuesInstances and subclasses of vegetable (Q11004), cereal (Q12117), fruit (Q3314483), forest product (Q5469189)
ExampleBroadbalk long-term experiment (Q41331872)Winter wheat (Q6977574)
Sourcehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crop
Planned useApply to instances and subclasses of long-term experiment (Q6672146)

Motivation

I am proposing "crop" as I am creating wikidata items for describing long-term agricultural experiments and wish to document the crops grown for the experiment. In my use case, crops would winter wheat, potatoes, spring beans, oats and maize. I would expect this to be a general property for other agricultural items, therefore suggesting this is constrained to field (Q188869), agricultural experiment (Q52146473) and farm (Q131596) and subclasses.
It should be possible to optionally qualify the crop with 1 or more cultivars.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Richardostler (talk • contribs) at 10:04, April 24, 2018‎ (UTC).

Discussion

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 15:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support seems reasonable. Have you considered making it more general (e.g. "produce")? --99of9 (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
@99of9: Thanks for the support and comment. Crop could also include a cover crop, or a break crop including grasses in a ley-arable rotation. I can't think of a broader term. Produce wouldn't be appropriate for these, but they could be defined as subclasses of crop. In the agricultural context produce may be better defined as the harvested material, including from livestock, e.g. grain, fruit, tubers, haylage, eggs, flowers, milk, meat.--Richardostler (talk) 09:32, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Let's suppose there was a long term experiment which evaluated how much wool was produced under different scenarios. Couldn't we find a way to use the same property to link the experiment to wool? --99of9 (talk) 04:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
On reflection, in my opinion this is too narrow to support. --99of9 (talk) 06:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

@Gstupp: Thanks for your feedback, but can you please elaborate on your objection? I think natural product of taxon (P1582) would work if I wanted to describe the product (e.g. grain) of the crop grown on the field, but that isn't the aim. The aim is to simply document the crop i.e winter wheat, grown on the experiment field, or any agricultural field. I think this proposed crop property is therefore aligned with AGROVOC crops concept.--Richardostler (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I misread the proposal. Any ways, this still seems oddly specific. Is there a way we can make it apply to any scientific experiment? I'm thinking specifically in how this could be used in a clinical trial for example. How about the property uses (P2283) and qualify it with object has role (P3831) -> crop (Q235352) ? Gstupp (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This is really too specific. Have you considered uses (P2283) for experiments? I think it's two things - one is a species USED in an experiment, and the other is species GROWING somewhere. While the first case can be easily modelled in the current structure, the second will probably require some property in future (which will be also applicable to stuff like meadows, groups of trees etc).--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Red List status of species[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionendangerment status of species in any of the national or regional databases, so called Red Lists
Representsspecies (Q7432)
Data typeItem
Domainspecies (Q7432)
Allowed valuesitem for species and subclasses of
ExampleAbemus chloropterus (Q1470623)critically endangered (Q219127) (country (P17)Czech Republic (Q213))
Sourcevarious, eg. this for Czech
Planned useimport several thousand data related to Red List of the Czech Republic
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
See alsoIUCN conservation status (P141)

Motivation

I wanted to start a property called "Status in the Red List of the Czech Republic" but then realized that this approach would in future lead to dozens of very similar properties related to various national/regional red lists (most countries have them). All statements using this property should use a qualifier such as country (P17) to denote the country to which a Red List applies. This is potentially a very important property so I'd like to invite everyone to discuss the best solution. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:36, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Biology
Abbe98
Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
MPF
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
TomT0m
Tubezlob
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject TaxonomyTom.Reding (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support John Samuel 19:51, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Why is this better than having an IUCN conservation status (P141)-type property for each list? There aren't very many lists/status systems out there, and having individual properties for each would provide a better constraint on the acceptable values (even within the IUCN there are multiple versions with differing acceptable values). —Tom.Reding (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
    • There is quite a lot of national red lists,see here - at least to me, >20 is quite a lot. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
      • Those can all be classified as 1 "National Red List" with the required qualifier "country = X", if I'm understanding the website correctly. —Tom.Reding (talk) 12:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
      • I suggest that the property be renamed to "National Red List status of species", and the description changed from "in any of the national or regional databases, so called Red Lists" to "in the National Red List database". —Tom.Reding (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
        • Makes sense to me. We can definitely narrow this down to national databases. However some are not called "Red list" as Faendalimas points out below. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this needs clarification. I get what you mean, the term red-list is popular among local governing bodies around the world as a name for endangered species list. Of these there is the international redlist managed by the IUCN (ie. IUCN conservation status (P141)) the local ones though similarly named are not the IUCN list. Other countries have other names, eg EMBC List of Australia. The presence or rank on one list does not necessarily reflect the status on another. I have no issue with more of these lists being recognized but the differences between them needs to be recognised also. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
This is very true. We should find a way to link to the specific national database using a qualifier. Also the property name should reflect that not all these lists are "Red lists". Do you have a specific suggestion, @Faendalimas: ? Thanks--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

For the moment Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. Please sketch the usage of the property with different local evaluations using the IUCN criteria. --Succu (talk)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose for reasons of my comment and agree with Succu. This needs to be better thought out, tease out the system to separate it from IUCN conservation status (P141)) appropriately. Show why we want to list the local declarations on species also. Not really sure what you want but at present too much overlap. Get this to a clear and useful proposal and I am happy to reconsider. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Example

Hello Succu, what about this? "Vulnerable" and "Endangered" should IMO be country-specific items. Each country has a different definition of "vulnerable", "endangered" etc; only a few use the IUCN system.

from here

--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 13:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Vojtěch Dostál, but your Germany example is wrong. The source should be Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands, Ausgabe 2009 ff. Rote Listen gefährdeter Tiere, Pflanzen und Pilze Deutschlands, Ausgabe 2009 ff. (=no label (Q23787493)). According to Methodik der Gefährdungsanalyse für Rote Listen the catagories used in this list do not have an exact match to that used by the IUCN. Methodically different evaluations should use there own vocabularities, hence different properties. --Succu (talk) 19:24, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Succu Yeah, it might be wrong, sorry - I'm not an expert on German Rote Liste and I don't plan to import them anyway. But you wanted me to give you an example so I did my best. The important thing is the structure of statements, isn't it? And I agree with what you said on the categories - precisely what I thought. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 09:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Another example: The Red List of South African Plants makes use of the IUCN categories with some extentions (National Red List Categories). Could you refine your above mentioned list with links to national (regional) assessments? --Succu (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, I was on a vacation. As for your request: I don't quite understand what you mean. The national assessments are already linked via stated in (P248). Would you like me to do the same example with South African Red List? It would be the same principle, but instead of using non-IUCN categories we could use preexisting IUCN category items. --Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure what would work better a general property "conservation status" with values for each country or one property for each country.
    --- Jura 13:01, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

CETAF specimen ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionpersistent identifier URL for a taxonomic specimen, compliant with the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities Stable Identifier Initiative
Data typeURL
Domaintaxon type specimens (+other notable specimens, if any)
Example 1item for the type specimen of Cinnamomum bejolghota (Q2972821)http://herbarium.bgbm.org/object/B100277113
Example 2item for the type specimen of Harpagoxenus sublaevis (Q309349)http://id.luomus.fi/GL.749
Example 3item for the type specimen of Carabus lusitanicus brevis (Q5037464)https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/ec/item/ec32
Number of IDs in sourcemany thousands, eventually millions
Expected completenesseventually complete

Motivation

As noted on Wikispecies:

the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities has created a system of persistent identifiers for type specimens (https://cetaf.org/cetaf-stable-identifiers). The intension is that the URI to the specimen will remain stable indefinitely, so we can link to type specimens without fear that the link will break.

The CETAF initiative creates "a joint Linked Open Data (LOD) compliant identifier system". The particpating institutions include the Royal Botanic Garden of Edinburgh, the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, The Natural History Museum, London, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Royal Museum for Central Africa. Additional information can be found at the CETAF Stable Identifier Initiative Wiki.

AIUI, the intention is that data about type specimens should be stored on an item about the specimen, not the item about the taxon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Abbe98
Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Delusion23 (talk)
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
MPF
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
TomT0m
Tubezlob
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Biology -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Symbol support vote.svg SupportTom.Reding (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - better to use links to the actual specimen in the holding museum, not a third party. Most holding museums are major organisations with stable websites. This is adding an extra step for mistakes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • CETAF IDs are in fact exactly what you advocate i.e. links to the specimens in the holding museum not a third party. CETAF is acting more as a standardisation body to get the museums to produce URLs with similar behaviours - basically Linked Data URIs with some agreed metadata attached. RogerHyam (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
      • No they are not, they are an unreviewed third party and this is problematic in nomenclature which requires serious review and checking prior to publication, ie peer review. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Faendalimas: The three examples given above are:

  1. http://herbarium.bgbm.org/object/B100277113
  2. http://id.luomus.fi/GL.749
  3. https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/ec/item/ec32

For each of those three cases, please tell us which "third party" is being linked to? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not say linked to, I said obtained from, and that it is a non reviewed assessment hence unchecked by scientific rigor. In anycase the first one has a second url on the page which is the museum whether its the correct specimen I do not know, the second is possibly linking to the correct specimen without evidence to show its correct, the third is a dead link for me so I cannot tell what its supposed to do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: What you said was "better to use links to the actual specimen in the holding museum, not a third party". Furthermore, when told "CETAF IDs are in fact exactly what you advocate i.e. links to the specimens in the holding museum... CETAF is acting more as a standardisation body to get the museums to produce URLs with similar behaviours - basically Linked Data URIs with some agreed metadata attached.", you replied "No they are not". [I've fixed the third link, in my comment; it was always correct in the proposal template.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not have an issue with the links. Its the authority of the information. I meant not "from" a third party. (If you copy and pasted my previous statement, I did not look, I must have left that word out, apologies for that). As in not obtaining the information from a third party. Rather than from the source. What I am getting at is that the information needs to be peer reviewed which online resources are not. I did figure there was a mistake in the url above I assumed you would fix it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this proposal needs some thorough investigations. According to CETAF Stable Identifiers the following 15 CETAF institutions implemented this kind

  1. Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem (Q163255)
  2. Finnish Museum of Natural History (Q3329689)
  3. Institute of Botany (Q30255205)
  4. Museum of Natural History Berlin (Q233098)
  5. Muséum national d'histoire naturelle (Q838691)
  6. Naturalis (Q641676)
  7. Natural History Museum of London (Q309388)
  8. Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo (Q1840963)
  9. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (Q1807521)
  10. Kew Gardens (Q188617)
  11. State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart (Q2324612)
  12. Bavarian Natural History Collections (Q2324459)
  13. Museum Koenig (Q510343)
  14. Meise Botanic Garden (Q3052500)
  15. Royal Museum for Central Africa (Q779703)

So how could we restrict this URI to this institutions. Most of the URIs will not represent a type specimen (Q51255340). How to use this URIs here? Next week I will try to have a closer look to the 5,5 million URIs provided by the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle. --Succu (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In the current MNHN dataset of ca. 5.5 million specimens 107,867 have a "typeStatus": type (Q3707858) = 27,277; syntype (Q719822) = 18,148; holotype (Q1061403) = 14,454; isosyntype (Q55195195) = 2,798; lectotype (Q2439719) = 2,521. --Succu (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Some problems with the current MNHN dataset I observed:
The dataset contains holotypes for family names
The dataset has multiple holotypes for a taxon, e.g. Cyathea rouhaniana (Q17037631) = P00411818 to P00411823
The dataset uses "decimalLatitude" and "decimalLongitude" without "coordinatePrecision". "verbatimCoordinates" or "verbatimLatitude" and "verbatimLongitude" are not given. --Succu (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
--Succu (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Excited by this. Would be willing to help with automated populating property. --RogerHyam (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roger, nice to see you here. If I understand the proposal right, it involves the creation of items to get taxonomic type (P427) working. So we need to define how to map the metadata values to our properties. I created P01069419 (Q55196248), P01069417 (Q55197790) and holotype of Ouratea sipaliwiniensis (Q55200035) as a base for discussions. --Succu (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather not get into recreating nomenclature. It is a intellectual exercise akin to the jigsaw puzzle in Laura & Hardy "Me and My Pal" (YouTube) - We will be at each others throats and the biodiversity of the world destroyed before we finish the task. Really a type relationship has to include literature and a lot of complexity that is of use to a small specialist audience and just confuses everyone else. If someone wants to know the type of a taxon they can read the literature in the Taxon Name (Property:P225).
It appears Wikidata is building a single consensus taxonomy. If we had a single property that was "has Voucher Specimen" or similar then we could add properties to taxa based on the identifications by experts in museums. e.g. Q557928 "has Voucher Specimen" http://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00590786 would be possible. Perhaps I should be proposing a different property but I'm new to the wikidata thing. RogerHyam (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata is not building a single consensus taxonomy. The contrary is true. A lot of users have difficulties to accept this. ;) --Succu (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Succu. Could you give an examples of multiple taxa (taxon concepts) with the same full scientific name in Wikidata. I'm a bit ignorant on this and need to understand how it is being represented. RogerHyam (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
E.g. we implemented APG I to IV. See the references for parent taxon (P171) at Cactaceae (Q14560): Maybe this is not exactly what you expected. Please note note this discussion too. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure that the name of the property is good. It may be better to have it as "Museum Specimen ID" or "Voucher Specimen ID" and then have a recommendation that these are CETAF compliant URIs. This way we can have stable links to many specimens that have been determined to belong to a taxon by experts and, if people are good with their data markup, most of these will be expandable into images and geolocations etc. RogerHyam (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment that this is already so confused shows why this is not a good idea in concept. You cannot call the type specimen a voucher specimen or a museum specimen per se. Yes a type is both of those but so are many other specimens. The type is a special case of a voucher or museum specimen as it is the only specimen that the available name of a taxon is attached to. No other specimen has this. It is the specimen upon which the name is established. It has major import. I agree it is only of major interest to a specialist minority, ie taxonomists mostly, but you cannot undervalue it, nor have it proposed in a way that any museum specimen or voucher could be called this. Only the original description or a peer reviewed taxonomic review should be used as the reference of the type specimen. As such they should be listed with reference to these articles and only this way. Then there is a clear reference. Online resources are not reviewed as such and are not reliable when it comes to types. This will introduce potential error in this area of nomenclature that is extremely exacting. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I created P01069419 (Q55196248) from the details given in Novitates neocaledonicae V: Eugenia plurinervia N. Snow, Munzinger & Callm. (Myrtaceae), a new threatened species with distinct leaves (Q55196032) ("Typus: New Caledonia. Prov. Nord: Ouazangou-Taom, Onajiele, 165 m, 20°46’43’’S 164°27’59’’E, 20.III.2016, Munzinger (leg. Scopetra) 7530 (holo- : P [P01069419]! ; iso- : G [G00341659]!, MO!, MPU [MPU310532]!, NOU [NOU054468]!, NSW!, P [P01069420]!)"). The applied changes by Mr. Mabbett now give the impression the data are taken form the MNHN record. --Succu (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
If you don't give references when you make claims, don't complain when someone else adds a valid citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The item was created to discuss mappings (= data model). If you had checked your reference you should have noticed some differences. --Succu (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The item was created without citations. I added them. If you think I acted improperly, you know where the admin noticeboard is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I corrected my omission. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
But it was reverted with the comment o restore coordinates, as previsouly?! --Succu (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No; it was reverted with the comment "to restore coordinates, as previously"; and that was because, as well as your declared reason for editing, you also - yet again - re-added coordinates saying that the object is in New Caledonia, on the opposite side of the planet to its actual current location. Hence Wikidata:Project_chat#Coordinates_of_objects_in_museums. None of which, of course, has anything to do with the proposal at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You proposed this change. Im OK with this. --Succu (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You are moving a bit fast for me to keep up, so please forgive my request for clarifications. Also, please forgive my lack is wiki etiquet if this is the wrong place for these comments.

It would be fantastic to load up all our typification information from the Meise Botanic Garden to Wikidata, but can you point me to a place that describes how?
In this property proposal there are no authority names. This is essential due to homonyms, but where possible they should be linked to people somewhere. However, does this cause problems when linking these data to other Latin names in Wikis that don't use authorities?
I’m sure there are errors in the data, such as there being two holotypes, fixing these is a motivation to expose the data. Does this work for you?
There also needs to be a field that tells you what sort of type it is holo-, lecto, iso, para, neo, etc. Do you want a full list?
The National Botanic Garden of Belgium changed its name a while ago, can I just edited this wikidata entry?

Qgroom (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I wish there was an easy answer to this. I would love to see a proposal that actually did types the way they should be, with all the appropriate metadata included, utilising the correct terminology as accepted in the science and discipline of taxonomy and nomenclature. Alas we do not get this we get rather hit and miss efforts. If someone wants to try and create a property with all the needed attributes, obtaining data from reliable resources I would be happy to help. The same types of properties I create already in museum databases as a museum curator. The same ones I already use as highly published taxonomist and a nomenclatural specialist. You want us to use this material at Wikispecies Andy?? then do it right. I would support this if it was done correctly Andy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think there are a few people in the CETAF community who could help get this right. Though personally I find it difficult to discuss these things in a chat page and I'm not sure how decisions are made here. Nevertheless, I'd really like to make this happen. Qgroom (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"I would love to see a proposal that actually did types the way they should be, with all the appropriate metadata included" Then you are in the wrong place. This is a proposal to create a property to hold one type of identifier-URL. The only arguments you have presented about it are either easily refuted (see "third party links" discussion, above. or are merely vague hand -waving and appeals to authority, with no substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
My comment here was a generalized one only brought up in reference to the above comment. Its not a direct reference to the proposal here at hand. So yes I know this is not the right place. I think the whole structure of how types are presented is inadequate. My point was that unfortunately many proposals are attempts to gather information from online resources for ease of mass import with no respect to the exacting nature of taxonomic data and metadata permitting potential mistakes. These online resources are not authorities on the taxonomy of species. What is the point of data if there is no evidence inherit that demonstrates it has been tested for accuracy. For taxonomic data I want to see us produce useful information not page upon page of unreliable rubbish. Your difficulty Andy is you do not use this information. You are presenting it, but not using it. Much of the informatics being presented, not necessarily by you I am generalizing now, has no guarantee, therefore it has no use in taxonomy. So what is it then except page upon page of what exactly? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Qgroom: for "a field that tells you what sort of type it is", please see P01069419 (Q55196248); but note also the issues with that data model, which I have raised here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I get it. So in your example P01069419 (Q55196248) you would replace the URL (P2699) with this proposed CETAF specimen ID property.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qgroom (talk • contribs) at 15:29, 27 June 2018‎ (UTC).
@Qgroom: Precisely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Could you please explain why this substitution is useful? What we (=Wikidata) gain from this change? --Succu (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose the question is why we need a subcategory of URL that is specific to CETAF specimen ID. Well from my point of view, which is quite ignorant of the workings of Wikidata, having the distinction is useful because the CETAF specimen ID points to a great level of stability and functionality than a standard URL. I'm not certain this is entirely necessary, however, it is particularly useful to have one URI that uniquely represents the digital representation of the physical specimen. People could link to many different image files or website all representing that specimen. These might be labelled in all sorts of ways and be derived from all sorts of places. Yet it is much better that there is only one standard way to refer to the physical specimen. Qgroom (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Brenda Tissue Ontology ID

   Under discussion
DescriptionIdentifier in the Brenda Tissue Ontology
RepresentsBRENDA tissue ontology (Q4836352)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaincellular component (Q5058355) anatomy (Q514) tissue (Q40397)
Allowed valuesFormat as regular expression: BTO:\d+
Examplereticulate body (Q51955198) => BTO:0001172
Sourcehttps://www.brenda-enzymes.org/ontology.php?ontology_id=3
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Formatter URLhttps://www.brenda-enzymes.org/ontology.php?ontology_id=3&id_go=$1
Robot and gadget jobscollect data from BTO
<type constaint - instance of>Wikidata property for authority control (Q18614948)
<single value constraint>yes
Proposed byDjow2019 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 09:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

invasive to[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionregion which a taxon is not endemic to where the taxon has a tendency to spread to a degree believed to cause damage to the environment, human economy or human health
Representsinvasive species (Q183368)
Data typeItem
Domaintaxon (Q16521)
Allowed valuesitems which are instance of (P31) of geographic region (Q82794) (including subclass of (P279))
Example 1Lycium ferocissimum (Q151022)Australia (Q408)
Example 2Rhinella marina (Q321087)Australia (Q408)
Example 3Common brushtail possum (Q732477)New Zealand (Q664)
Planned useSpecify weeds and pests which are considered invasive in territorial or geographic regions of the world
See alsoendemic to (P183)

Motivation

Currently there is no direct way to state that a species is considered a weed or pest in a particular geographic region. This knowledge is widely published by government authorities and other organisations who take responsibility for limiting or eradicating the problems caused by invasive species. Dhx1 (talk) 02:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I support this concept, only suggestion is that when recorded a reliable reference should be included stating it is an invasive species in that region, also the natural regions of the species should be ensured to be complete for this. This is because feral species are often targeted for eradication and I think we have a responsibility to clearly state where a species should not be and where it should be. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 21:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

Biochemistry/molecular biology[edit]

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

Guide to Pharmacology Target ID[edit]

DescriptionID in the IUPHAR target database
RepresentsIUPHAR/BPS Guide to PHARMACOLOGY (Q17091219)
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameterIUPHAR in en:Template:Infobox gene
Domainitem
Allowed values\d{1,4}
Example 1DRD1 (Q2035393) → 214
Example 2ESR1 (Q14902310) → 620
Example 35-hydroxytryptamine receptor 1A (Q21115043) → 1
Format and edit filter validation1 to 4 digit number can be validated with edit filter
Sourcehttp://www.guidetopharmacology.org/GRAC/
Planned useadd external links to infobox
Number of IDs in sourceapproximately 500
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886) (not all proteins are targets of ligands)
Formatter URLhttp://www.guidetopharmacology.org/GRAC/ObjectDisplayForward?objectId=$1
Robot and gadget jobscollect data from en:Template:IUPHAR
See alsoGuide to Pharmacology Ligand ID (P595)

Motivation

The pre-Wikidata en:Template:GNF Protein box supported external links to the external IUPHAR database of Biological target (Q904407). Currently en:Template:Infobox gene erroneously uses Guide to Pharmacology Ligand ID (P595) which are ligands (Ligand in biochemistry (Q899107)). We therefore need a new property for IUPHAR targets. I started to setup no label (Q55385849), but then noticed that new properties should be proposed before created (sorry about that). Boghog (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Support. I agree that this is an important database worth linking properly, and that 'ligands' and 'targets' are (almost) disjoint sets which are worthy of have a separate property. Even if a molecule was both a ligand and a target, distinguish these properties is very reasonable. The name chosen seems appropriate, matching the style of the existing 'ligand' property. Klbrain (talk) 12:11, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support per "Motivation". Seppi333 (Insert ) 03:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Boghog, Klbrain, Pigsonthewing: ✓ Done: Guide to Pharmacology Target ID (P5458). − Pintoch (talk) 08:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Chemistry[edit]

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

Medicine[edit]

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

Mineralogy[edit]

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

Computer science[edit]

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

software version[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe object item is version (current or past) of the software Versienummer van de software (nl) – (Please translate this into English.)
Representssoftware version (Q51928997)
Data typeItem
Domainsoftware (Q7397)
Allowed valuessoftware version (Q51928997)
ExampleMicrosoft Windows (Q1406)software version  Windows 10 (Q18168774) / object has role (P3831)major version
Windows 10 (Q18168774)software version  Windows 10 Version 1511 (Q22686609) / object has role (P3831)minor version
See alsosoftware version (P348)

Motivation

This property is equal to software version (P348) but for software versions that have an own Wikidata item. It doesn't distinguish between major versions, minor versions, builds, patches... I don't know if the best approach is to add the qualifier object has role (P3831) as shown in the example or to create additional properties like "major version", "minor version", "build"... Malore (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This would be the true inverse of Wikidata:Property proposal/software version of. I think that proposal is the better one here; on the principle of not having so many inverse properties, I think it would be preferable to have just that one rather than this proposal. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Yes, this is the true inverse. Only this property and "software version of" are inverses. Do you think we should change software version (P348) datatype to item? Because otherwise we could have both this property and software version (P348) as we have author (P50) and author name string (P2093). However, I created a RFC about how to manage software versions. Maybe you could help me to solve the problem.--Malore (talk) 21:12, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Azertus
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Fractaler
Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Diaz
FabC
Jasc PL
Malore
putnik
Dhx1
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics ChristianKl❫ 15:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose How about using statement is subject of (P805) qualifier? e.g.

--Wdpp (talk) 15:27, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

software version of[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionthe subject item is a version of the object item
Representssoftware (Q7397)
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Allowed valuessoftware (Q7397)
ExampleFirefox 4 (Q1950119)Mozilla Firefox (Q698)
See alsosoftware version (P348)

Motivation

Inverse of software version (P348). There are items that are software versions of other items. Currently, there isn't a property that links from the former to the latterMalore (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support actually it's not an inverse of software version (P348) since that is a string-valued property and can't have an inverse in wikidata. I think this is the better direction to have this anyway, so definitely I support this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:29, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@ArthurPSmith: For this reason too, I proposed in project chat to create a "software version" property with items as datatype and to rename software version (P348) in "software version name string".--Malore (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Tobias1984
Emw
Zuphilip
Danrok
Bene*
콩가루
TomT0m
DrSauron
Ruud Koot
Andreasburmeister
Ilya
Toto256
MichaelSchoenitzer
Metamorforme42
Pixeldomain
User:YULdigitalpreservation
Dipsode87
Azertus
Pintoch
Daniel Mietchen
Jsamwrites
Fractaler
Giovanni Alfredo Garciliano Diaz
FabC
Jasc PL
Malore
putnik
Dhx1
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject InformaticsChristianKl❫ 15:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

We should be creating and using generic properties wherever possible, so as to avoid creating many 1000s of very specific properties. The concept of version is not limited to software, and we do already have based on (P144) and subclass of (P279) which can be used in many situations. Danrok (talk) 01:28, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
@Danrok: You could say the same about edition or translation of (P629), or a bunch of other properties that could be substituted by instance of (P31) and subclass of (P279).--Malore (talk) 16:57, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
  • After thinking about it for long time, I Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, since I see two problems here:
  • It's to specific. "software version of" makes it usable to only software. If at all it should be "version of" since there are other things that are versioned too (Licenses, 3D-Models, technical Specifications, etc.) and there is a fluid transition. But I would like to have even more abstract properties and share them with other areas where different versions/editions/iterations of things exist, including editions of books. The reason is that the more specialized properties your have for each area the harder it's getting to write queries that (also) work in the border-areas and/or in the bigger picture. An example in this case would be technical specifications and standards which are in between of software and books, but are none of both. Should one then use "software version of" or has edition (P747) or yet another to be created property? When writing queries and would need to know and think of all these special cases, which doesn't work…
  • It's semantically not fully correct in most cases – including the reference example: Firefox 4 (Q1950119)Mozilla Firefox (Q698). Firefox 4 is not one version of Firefox. It's a version series. Firefox 4.0.0, 4.0.1, etc. are versions of Firefox. This would be the issue basically always since we so far basically only have items about version-series not single versions. One could bypass this by renaming it, but that would make it uglier and lead to problems if/when we have items about singe versions. And in the end this increases the need for having a more general property.
I see the need to improve the ontology of software versions, but I'm against this property. Sorry! I'm thinking about writing down all the open questions & issues about software versioning (there are a lot!) and make a working group or a big RFC, but I sadly don't have the time right now. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 11:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In order to simplify the queries, we could make "software version of" and edition or translation of (P629) (and eventually other properties such as "specification version of") subproperties of "edition or version of".
"software version of" and edition or translation of (P629) should be separate properties because they have different qualifiers and the model that describes books - the FRBR model - is different from the software version one (in fact, there isn't a universal versioning model, but every software can adopt its own).
  • Firefox 4 is a major version of Firefox, while as far as I know Firefox 4.0.0 and Firefox 4.0.1 are called releases. They are different type of versions, but they are both versions.
However, even if "software version of" wasn't the best solution, it's better than the current management of software version and I think it doesn't create problems if we want to change the model in future.--Malore (talk) 16:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Use generic properties whenever possible. Many types of things are versions of something, this concept is not limited to software. Danrok (talk) 01:32, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think we would be better off expanding the scope of edition or translation of (P629) to include "or version". Is there a reason this wouldn't work? --99of9 (talk) 01:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @99of9: edition or translation of (P629) would no longer be the inverse of has edition (P747) - unless we change it into "edition or version" - and it would no longer be an instance of version (Q3331189) - unless we change it into "version, edition, translation or version". Probably other things should be modified because these properties are thought for books, not for software. I think we can use similar structures in order to describe software and books, but not the same one--Malore (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I've struck my opposition. --99of9 (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Geology[edit]

Please visit Wikidata:WikiProject Geology for more information.

areas affected[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionareas affected by a natural disaster
Data typeItem
Template parameter"affected" in en:template:infobox earthquake
Domaingeographic location (Q2221906)
Example1906 San Francisco earthquake (Q211386)North Coast (Q2671326), Central Coast (Q2413435), San Francisco Bay Area (Q213205)

Motivation

Filling a template need. NMaia (talk) 12:47, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

JMA Magnitude[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionMagnitude of an earthquake according to Japan Meteorological Agency
RepresentsJapanese Meteorological Agency magnitude scale (Q1676638)
Data typeQuantity
Template parameter"scale" in Template:地震, "magnitude" in Template:Infobox earthquake
Domainearthquake (Q7944)
Allowed values0 - 10
Allowed unitsnull
Example 12011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (Q36204) → 8.4 (see also here)
Example 22018 Osaka earthquake (Q55080471) → 6.1
Example 32016 Kumamoto earthquakes (Q23825118) → 7.3
SourceRevision of JMA Magnitude, database

Motivation

Property for magnitudes is provided as earthquake magnitude on the moment magnitude scale (P2527) or earthquake magnitude on the Richter magnitude scale (P2528). But JMA magnitude, used in Japan, is not provided for now... 軽快 (talk) 05:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

 SELECT DISTINCT * WHERE{
   ?s wdt:P31 wd:Q7944.
   ?s wdt:P(Magnitude) ?M.
    FILTER (?M > 8.0)
 }
than
 SELECT DISTINCT * WHERE{
   ?s wdt:P31 wd:Q7944.
   {
    ?s wdt:P(JMA Magnitude) ?M.
    FILTER (?M > 8.0)
   } UNION {
    ?s wdt:P(Moment Magnitude) ?MM.
    FILTER (?MM > 8.0)
   } UNION {
    ...
   }
 }
because the latter can be written only when he/she know all the magnitude type. It's the typical bad point of making too detailed properties. I don't think there are so many people who want to know the magnitude measured only by a specific method, and even in that situation, they can make the query using qualifiers. --何三(S) (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
@何三(S): The former query should not be written because it losses the crucial information about what that value is. We cannot believe all of the values stored in "(generalized) magnitude" claims are close to the value of earthquake magnitude on the moment magnitude scale (P2527) etc. (Suppose some definitions of magnitude tend to indicate very high values.)
The latter query is not so difficult to write for people who have already familiar with SPARQL, but, on the other hand, if they want to get just the moment magnitude scale (Q201605) of 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami (Q36204), for example, they need to know the detailed data model of Wikidata qualifiers:
SELECT ?earthquake ?earthquakeLabel ?momentMagnitude
WHERE 
{ 
  BIND(wd:Q36204 as ?earthquake). #[[Q36204|2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami]]
  ?earthquake p:P(Magnitude) ?statement.
  ?statement pq:P1013 wd:Q201605. #[[Property:P1013|criterion used]], [[Q201605|moment magnitude scale]]
  ?statement ps:P(Magnitude) ?momentMagnitude.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". } 
}
Specific properties allow us to write a simple query:
SELECT ?earthquake ?earthquakeLabel ?momentMagnitude
WHERE 
{ 
  BIND(wd:Q36204 as ?earthquake). #[[Q36204|2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami]]
  ?earthquake wdt:P2527 ?momentMagnitude #[[Property:P2527|earthquake magnitude on the moment magnitude scale]]
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". } 
}
Of course, it is a trade-off, but in my opinion, specific properties are superior in the accuracy of information and in ease in handling. --Okkn (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per 何三(S)'s solution (and seconding Arthur's concern); but if we do make this, the datatype should be "item". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:36, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as per my above comments. --Okkn (talk) 16:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Geography[edit]

peninsula of location[edit]

   Under discussion
Representspeninsula (Q34763)
Data typeItem
Example
See alsoisland of location (P5130)

Motivation

similar to Property:P5130 (island of location) there should be a property for peninsulas. See example above. Antarctic Peninsula is not an island thus we can not use Property:P5130. Property:P706 (located on terrain feature) is too unspecific. 91.227.222.7 15:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Mathematics[edit]

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

Material[edit]

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

Young's modulus[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionMaterial proprety linking the elastic deformation to the yield strengh at ambient temperature (20~25°C)
Representsmaterial (Q214609) > mechanical property of materials (Q5725005) > Young's modulus (Q2091584)
Data typeQuantity
Template parameterThis proprety request is part of the project of creating an infobox for materials from the french Wikipedia : related discussion
DomainPhysical and mechanical property of all solid Materials
Allowed valuesAny number. Well defined materials have one value. Generic materials have a upper and lower bound. Qualifiers : temperature (P2076) (shall be mandatory), pressure (P2077), determination method (P459).
Allowed unitsN/mm² / Pa / MPa / GPa / Psi / MPsi
Example 1SAE 316L stainless steel (Q28453931) → 200 000 N/mm²
Example 2SAE 304 stainless steel (Q3600978) → 200 000 N/mm²
Example 3molybdenum (Q1053) → 330 000 N/mm²
Example 4brass (Q39782) → 100 000 to 125 000 N/mm² > brass is a generic name for an alloy so that it depends what type of brass.
Sourcew:Young's modulus
Planned useCreating an infobox for materials on the french wiki (this is the first material proprety requested, others will be needed)

Motivation

This proprety request is part of the project of creating an infobox for materials from the french Wikipedia : related discussion. It is a first attemp on material proprety creation on Wikidata. Other material propreties will be proposed if a consensus is reached on this one. Thibdx (talk) 21:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Djhé (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 14:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support yes definitely - somehow I thought we already had this! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, but this property should have temperature (P2076) as a mandatory qualifier; it cannot be limited to room temperature only. Maybe some other qualifiers should also be allowed? Wostr (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Solutions regarding temperature :

  • We can consider that if the temperature is not specified, the value refers to room temperature. This is the common use.
  • We can add temperature as a mandatory qualifier and the norm used for the test as an optional qualifier. (optional because it is not easy to use).

Regards -- Thibdx (talk) 08:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

  • We have similar solution in pl.wiki regarding chemical compounds – if conditions are not specified then it's 25 Celsius/1000 hPa. I don't think this is the best approach here in WD. For the second, you can use determination method (P459). Wostr (talk) 12:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
determination method (P459) seems to be perfect.
On some datasheet the temperature is not specified. Then the user don't know since it depends on the country : w:Standard conditions for temperature and pressure. This is not really important except if the material is something like chocolate acutally. Anyway, It's a detail, most users are smart enough to put something between 20 and 25°C if there is only "room temperature". It can be a mandatory parameter if no one is against this. --Thibdx (talk) 15:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
If temperature is not specified then you can add temperature = somevalue. Polymers too, not only chocolate ;) Wostr (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Ultimate tensile strength[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionMaterial proprety measuring the tensil strengh at break (20~25°C)
Representsmaterial (Q214609) > mechanical property of materials (Q5725005) > ultimate tensile strength (Q76005)
Data typeQuantity
Template parameterThis proprety request is part of the project of creating an infobox for materials
DomainMechanical property of all solid Materials
Allowed valuesAny number. Since it depend on parameters such as thermic treatment, most materials will an have a upper and lower bound. Qualifiers : temperature (P2076) (shall be mandatory), pressure (P2077), determination method (P459).
Allowed unitsN/mm² / Pa / MPa / Psi
Example 1SAE 316L stainless steel (Q28453931) → 250 to 300 N/mm²
Example 2stainless steel (Q172587) → 250 to 2000 N/mm²
Example 3beryllium (Q569) → 450 N/mm²
Sourcew:Ultimate tensile strength
Planned useCreating an infobox for materials

Motivation

This proprety request is part of the project of creating an infobox for materials.

Discussion

Yield strengh[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionMaterial proprety measuring the stress above which materials begin to permanently deform
Representsmaterial (Q214609) > mechanical property of materials (Q5725005) > Yield (engineering) (Q5939736)
Data typeQuantity
Template parameterThis proprety request is part of the project of creating an infobox for materials
DomainMechanical property of all solid Materials
Allowed valuesAny number. Since it depend on parameters such as thermic treatment, most materials will an have a upper and lower bound. Qualifiers : temperature (P2076) (shall be mandatory), pressure (P2077), determination method (P459).
Allowed unitsN/mm² / Pa / MPa / Psi
Example 1SAE 316L stainless steel (Q28453931) → 250 to 300 N/mm²
Example 2stainless steel (Q172587) → 250 to 1000 N/mm²
Example 3beryllium (Q569) → 450 N/mm²
Sourcew:Yield_(engineering)
Planned useCreating an infobox for materials

Motivation

This proprety request is part of the project of creating an infobox for materials.

Discussion

Hardness[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionMeasure of how resistant solid matter is to various kinds of permanent shape change when a force is applied
Representsmaterial (Q214609) > mechanical property of materials (Q5725005) > hardness (Q3236003)
Data typeQuantity
Template parameterThis proprety request is part of the project of creating an infobox for materials
DomainMechanical property of all solid Materials
Allowed valuesAny number. Since it depend on parameters such as thermic treatment, most materials will an have a upper and lower bound. Qualifiers : temperature (P2076) (shall be mandatory), pressure (P2077), determination method (P459).
Allowed unitsHV, HRC, HRB, µHV, HB, HLD, HK, Shore A, Shore B... There is a lot of measuring methods an each have it's own unit. The use of a method over another depends on the hardness level and the traditions for this type of material.
Example 1SAE 316L stainless steel (Q28453931) → 70 HRB
Example 2stainless steel (Q172587) → 15 to 65 HRC
Example 3Polyamide 11 (Q7226130) → 70 Shore D
Sourcew:Hardness
Planned useCreating an infobox for materials

Motivation

This proprety request is part of the project of creating an infobox for materials.

Discussion

The main difficulty with Hardness is that there is a bunch of measuring methods an each have it's own unit. The use of a method over another depends on the hardness level and the traditions for this type of material. It can be handled quite well using the datatype quantity and the qualifier determination method (P459). Since the conversion between the different hardness tests is difficult (ref : w:Hardness comparison), it could be interesting to enter several values for a single material. -- Thibdx (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

All sciences[edit]