Wikidata:Property proposal/develops from
develops from[edit]
| Description | Will be used to connect concepts where one directly develops from the other. In our case, it will be implemented to connect anatomical entities, but it is not restricted to it. |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | can have multiple, but anatomy and organisms in our case |
| Example | endothelium (Q111140) → mesoderm (Q323438) |
| Source | UBERON for anatomical entities, but can have other sources as well |
| Robot and gadget jobs | used by ProteinBoxBot to connect anatomy terms |
- Motivation
There is a need for a way to describe how one structure develops to the next. Especially in the biological field, since we are talking about development of organ systems and organisms themselves. It is a step-by-step representation of how an organism is created. --Emitraka (talk) 21:19, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- Discussion
Support Yes, lets add it. Certainly needed in biology. Opportunities for use in other domains maybe? (that might impact constraints) --I9606 (talk) 22:16, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine 
WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. WikiProject Molecular biology has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.- Comment we have follows (P155)/followed by (P156) and replaces (P1365)/replaced by (P1366). I'm leaning support but I'd like to see those properties given consideration before giving a firm opinion. Thryduulf (talk) 23:26, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
- I would add something in the label of the property, if we don't reject it, which makes it clear that the domain is biology. While I can see uses outside that, organisms have a different way of doing things... --Izno (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf @Iznoyes they do exist, but in the biological/medical domain it is something totally different. Take for example cell differentiation, wherein epigenetic processes play a big role. You have a particular cell type which distinguishes itself by a specific methylation pattern. The cells are not replaced by something different. They develop from one form to another, while their DNA sequence remains the same. So they are not replaced by an entirely different entity. Another example that comes to mind, holometabolous insects. A mosquito develops from a pupa, it does not replace it. Also, the inner lining of the heart is developed from endothelium, it does not follow endothelium. There could be placed a constraint on the domain, biology only, so to make its use more clear. --Emitraka (talk) 20:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I'm not happy with the current definition. From the definition it's not apparent to me whether the goal is to express the relationship between `adult` and `child` or `organ of species A` develops from `organ of species B` where B is an ancestor of A? ChristianKl (talk) 13:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
Support I don't think 'replaces'/'replaced by' adequately substitutes 'develops from' since the former seems to primarily be used with new instances. For example, president Bush is replaced by president Obama suggests a new instance of a president. Same with the Star Wars movie followed by the next Star Wars movie example--it's a new instance of a movie. In the case of biological development (eg- from stem cell to mature neuron), it's not a new instance of that cell. The use of this property for 'child' and 'adult' makes sense if the page is referring to a single instance of a person. The 'organ of species A' develops from 'organ of species B' doesn't sound like it would apply since it's a different instance (to me an 'evolved from' property would make more sense for this case. I think as long as the appropriate distinctions are made, this is a sensible property. Gtsulab (talk) 16:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
- The way I see this proposal, - outside biology - would fit into the proposal. And indeed I think Izno's existing alternatives would not really apply in this case either, as the star is still the same ojbect, but in a new form. Also I think follows (P155)/followed by (P156) and replaces (P1365)/replaced by (P1366) do not apply well to classes. With this understanding and the more generic approach I
Support this proposal. Lymantria (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC) - Support based on the above replies to my comment. Thryduulf (talk) 20:45, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
@Emitraka, I9606, Gtsulab, Lymantria, Thryduulf: 
Done --Srittau (talk) 11:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)