Wikidata:Property proposal/exists between
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
exists between[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
- Motivation
This property is useful to describe some anatomical relations (see above examples). And it mey be able to use for general uses.
Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine --Okkn (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
- Why do you think this property will be better than using connects with (P2789)? ChristianKl (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- I do not know I want to say yes because it is easy to find examples where this is the best way to describe the relationship between things. I want to say no because this is so vague that it would be hard to describe when to use this and when the relationship is trivial to note. Perhaps if the name could be made more specific then using it would be more meaningful. Like for example, should every street be tagged like Seventh Avenue (Q109926) -> exists between Sixth Avenue (Q109873) and Eighth Avenue (Q109951)? This seems like an inefficient way to sort maps, even if the relationship might work for body parts. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:02, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl, Bluerasberry: In case both connects with (P2789) and «exists between» can be used, connects with (P2789) should be used. (ex. NOT “stomach «exists between» esophagus and small intestine” but “stomach «connects with» esophagus and small intestine”)
- However, some relations such as the above examples is a little different from connects with (P2789) because the subject item and object items are heterogeneous. In my opinion, boundary surface doesn't connect with its surrounding object. This is the same with bone vs joint or cavity vs wall relationships. In addition, if X «exists between» A and B, X usually can't be exist without the existence of A and B.
- I feel certain that this property is required. --Okkn (talk) 14:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Okkn: Okay, that seems reasonable. I am not sure what more I should ask. Would it be fair for me to ask that you write some documentation which says, "If both this and property X can be used, then use only property X, which is more specific"? I do not know how properties get documented here, but it seems like there would be standard text for saying how users should apply the most specific property which could be applied when both a specific one and a vague one are available. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Bluerasberry: I agree with you. Maybe description field or Wikidata usage instructions (P2559) statement is the place for that use.
- And I think that constraints like
{{Constraint:Conflicts with|list={{P|2789}} }}or those for other specific properies can be used. --Okkn (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Okkn: Okay, that seems reasonable. I am not sure what more I should ask. Would it be fair for me to ask that you write some documentation which says, "If both this and property X can be used, then use only property X, which is more specific"? I do not know how properties get documented here, but it seems like there would be standard text for saying how users should apply the most specific property which could be applied when both a specific one and a vague one are available. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- There's another issue, our properties takes one value and not two. When it takes more than one value we usually use qualifiers. ChristianKl (talk) 15:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: If there is only just one pair of two values, can't it be dealed with in the same manner as connects with (P2789)?--Okkn (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Okkn: The semantics of our properties are structured in a form that they work even if there's more than one pair of values. ChristianKl (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: I think this property should have only just one pair of values. Is that still no good? --Okkn (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no. The semantics of the property shouldn't change when another pair of values gets added. There's also no natural way to determine which is the one-and-only correct value that's between A and B and our usual way to deal with a case where there isn't an absolute truth is to allow different people to make different statements. ChristianKl (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: OK. Then, whould it be a problem if we use list of values as qualifiers (Q23766486) and of (P642) to take a pair of values? (I fixed the above examples.) --Okkn (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- I'm okay with those semantics. ChristianKl (talk) 15:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: OK. Then, whould it be a problem if we use list of values as qualifiers (Q23766486) and of (P642) to take a pair of values? (I fixed the above examples.) --Okkn (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, no. The semantics of the property shouldn't change when another pair of values gets added. There's also no natural way to determine which is the one-and-only correct value that's between A and B and our usual way to deal with a case where there isn't an absolute truth is to allow different people to make different statements. ChristianKl (talk) 10:26, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: I think this property should have only just one pair of values. Is that still no good? --Okkn (talk) 17:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @Okkn: The semantics of our properties are structured in a form that they work even if there's more than one pair of values. ChristianKl (talk) 17:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: If there is only just one pair of two values, can't it be dealed with in the same manner as connects with (P2789)?--Okkn (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Not done Lack of support.--Micru (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2017 (UTC)