Wikidata:Property proposal/Plants of the World online

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Plants of the World online ID[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

Descriptionidentifier of a (vascular) plant name in the Plants of the World online database
RepresentsPlants of the World Online (Q47542613)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainplant (Q756)
Example
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned useupon request
Formatter URLhttp://www.plantsoftheworldonline.org/taxon/$1
Robot and gadget jobsyes
See alsofor a different use of IPNI numbers, see IPNI plant ID (P961), which uses a different subset

Motivation

Upon request. Should be useful. Can't hurt: respected database, with substantial content. - Brya (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

Discussion

Three times now, Brya has reverted my closing this as "not done". Such behaviour is highly disruptive. There is not a snowball-in-hell's chance of us creating a duplicate property proposed as holding the same values as another. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twice now Andy Mabbett has refused to answer a basic question, making it a near certainty that he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts. - Brya (talk) 11:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which question? (Your indenting was again broken, BTW). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That question (although since that time there was a shift from an assumption to an assertion). I can't say I find Andy Mabbett's attitude of "ignorant and proud of it" amusing. - Brya (talk) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That question was answered in the subsequent edit; as you know, since you replied it it. So stop posting falsehoods. And knock of the ad hominem attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett can play ignorant all he wants, but he did present an assumption ("If ..."), and when asked to substantiate this, he shifted this to an assertion, apparently based on the presumption that if one does not know what one is talking about, and being called out on that, it is a good idea to start shouting. - Brya (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There was, as stated, no assumption. What you wrote in the original proposal (regarding $1 in the formatter URL) was "$1 is an IPNI number (P961)". And you, too, need to stop your abusive ad hominem attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As Andy Mabbett note I wrote "is an IPNI number" and Andy Mabbett wrote down the assumption "If these values are those in IPNI plant ID (P961), ", and later went even further, shifting to an assertion. Andy Mabbett apparently really likes acting the part of being an ignorant loudmouthed bully. - Brya (talk) 11:37, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Mabbett finally got it „same source as last edit also says "By 2020, POWO will be the most comprehensive single information resource covering all plants")“. --Succu (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

General purpose of wikidata properties[edit]

  •  Comment The above discussion suggests to me that there are differing understandings of the purpose of wikidata properties. In general for structured databases it's preferable to avoid redundancy in the storage of information - we generally discourage creation of inverse properties, for example, as the information only needs to be entered once to be available for anybody to use (via SPARQL query at least). And similarly we discourage creation of properties that record the same piece of data as an existing property. The reason to avoid redundancy is that it multiplies the required effort in maintenance of data - the same data needs to be entered 2 or more times, instead of just once - and it can also lead to inconsistencies that are difficult to resolve, when for example the two different properties are maintained by separate people or groups with different standards or approaches. However, we do also want wikidata information to be useful to people accessing it via standard systems of one sort or another (particularly wikipedia templates with LUA etc). So maybe this is a case for an exception along those lines. But I think the case needs to be much more clearly made on why a separate property is needed here. Why is the third party formatter URL approach not sufficient? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Third party formatter URL doesn't really solve "same data needs to be entered 2 or more times". There are IPNI IDs that don't have records in POWO, so something has to be entered for each item with a POWO record to indicate that the POWO record exists. And like Tom.Reding says, I would find it counterintuitive to have to look for POWO under IPNI when every other botanical database has it's own section on Wikidata. Plantdrew (talk) 17:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Plantdrew: so your argument is that this property would be not so much to provide the ID, but to provide an indication that POWO has a page for it. Do we have an example of an IPNI that is not covered in POWO? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is of no relevance (see my remark below). But: 128853-1 and urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:128853-1. --Succu (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ArthurPSmith: I gave a solution for this use-case, requiring no new property, and usable today, above (timestamp: 17:49, 3 February). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If these values are those in IPNI plant ID (P961). No, Mr. Mabbett --Succu (talk) 21:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Random, out of context quotes, relating to a different proposal to the one at hand. Not helpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Then make it helpful Mr. Mabbett. What's you point now. --Succu (talk) 21:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mr. Mabbett for your housekeeping --Succu (talk) 22:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The domain of POWO and IPNI and the range of possible values are different. If an POWO-URN is based on an IPNI id it link's not to the „same piece of data“. --Succu (talk) 18:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, although the identifiers stored in a wikidata item can be made the same, they wouldn't necessarily be so because IPNI has more than one identifier for the same name. Thus Lotus rubriflorus H.Sharsm. is at both 144018-2 and 503872-1. However, WOFO only has an entry at 144018-2. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:22, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done[edit]

@Brya, Pigsonthewing, Succu, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ArthurPSmith: @Jts1882, Peter coxhead, Tom.Reding, Plantdrew: ✓ Done Micru (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Micru: there were different suggestions above as how to handle the POWO database, but as I understand it, you have created a property Plants of the World Online ID (P5037) to be used on items that are instances of taxon (Q16521), just like other databases. That is certainly a help to us over at enwiki. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:55, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record: Byttneriaceae in POWO has no entry in IPNI. --Succu (talk) 14:04, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Encouraging to see that this straightforward proposal for a useful property won through, in spite of all the obstructionism (based on fact-free logic). - Brya (talk) 05:03, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Plants_of_the_World_online&oldid=665239960"