[15:10:04] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User_talk:UWashPrincipalCataloger#University_of_Alaska_Anchorage_(Q1285252) <- hopefully my argument there about 'parent and subsidiary' as opposed to 'part of' makes sense. [15:10:28] I think I might have figured out a decent way to explain it. [15:10:53] my brain is melting [15:11:55] .. the board has 'rights' that go far past "I own it", and they don't "own it" [15:12:53] They govern it because state law says so (like a county government) not because of ownership. [15:12:56] seems like a lot of properties are redundant and force false dichotomies [15:13:15] subtle differences... [15:13:26] rather than P:owns (say, i know that's not the actual prop) [15:13:45] P:has relationship with -> Q.... [15:13:55] qualiifer: P:relationship: owns [15:14:10] *Q:owns [15:14:27] like, 'university campus' as a chunk of real property, and 'university campus' as the combination of that ground with the 'social space' are two different items. [15:14:35] right [15:15:26] and also perhaps as a legal and/or organisational entity [15:15:43] Yep [15:16:06] which may or may not "own" the land and may have "some" relationship to the "social space" [15:16:24] constraint violations help if they are set up right. [15:16:26] tldr none of it really can fit into any particular bucket [15:17:04] Yeah, you have to choose which 'homonym' is appropriate based on the context of the claim. [15:17:27] i think this is just another case of over-specific properties that are actual qualified general properties in disguise [15:17:59] e.g. [[P2679]] [15:18:00] yup [15:18:00] 10[1] 04https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/P2679 [15:18:06] author of foreword (P2679) [15:18:22] WTF even is that? [15:18:25] Useless. [15:18:42] author: Q:author; qual: P:applies to part: Q:foreword [15:19:27] Not bothering to define the foreward (if a work of seperate authorship) as a seperate item that was published in the book, with 'subject has role' foreward. [15:19:40] Or what you said, if not bothering to make a new item. [15:19:44] or even [15:20:37] If it's one on those things where they add a new foreward, or preface, or whatever with each edition and you end up with 4 or 5 (sigh) [15:22:12] P:creator: Q:author; quals: P:applies to part: Q:foreword, P:subject has role: Q:author [15:22:13] having creator AND author as tow completely separate properties is bizarre too [15:22:15] *object has role [15:22:25] which is also a stupid name [15:22:37] What I mean is, only worth making it a separate item item if historical nonsense gave it a separate publication history and copyright date. [15:22:50] right [15:22:58] which basically never happens [15:23:14] i mean: [[Q1358138)]] [15:23:15] 10[2] 04https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1358138%29 [15:23:17] s/)// [15:23:55] there's also a whole bunch of other "parts" [15:24:36] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P460 should require a source [15:24:37] preface, afterword, appendix, translator's note, introduction, dedication, imprimitur, etc etc [15:24:44] (said to be the same as) [15:25:01] any one can in theory have an author, translator, editor, etc [15:25:25] or at least... dammit, can't remember the number, an explanatory note [15:25:56] i'm never sure about that one [15:26:01] "said to be the same as, but isn't"? [15:26:29] or just "sometimes considered to be the same thing" [15:26:30] It should actually be used in the context of a false/erroneous claim by a source [15:26:54] Like, old historical wrongness [15:26:55] then it should be called "wrongly said to be the same as" [15:27:21] the label specifically tells you "but it's uncertain or disputed" [15:27:39] i guess the wrongness is implicit by there being two items [15:27:53] http://vocab.getty.edu/ontology#ulan1005_possibly_identified_with [15:27:58] if it were the same thing there'd be one items [15:28:11] That's the 'ontology' for what it's supposed to mean. [15:29:12] Not necessarily "wrong", but more that people claim it while others disagree, and the "people" aren't supposed to be the editor. [15:29:51] "may be equal to" [15:29:59] does not sound like the same thing [15:30:21] "similar to" is definitely not [15:30:28] "equivalent to" [15:30:37] wat [15:30:52] that's like the exact opposite [15:31:33] There are a number of those things where the link to whatever ontology or controlled vocab explains it better than whatever mistaken randomness has been conflated with it. [15:32:41] I find it helps a lot to think about if the claim should be (as makes sense as) transitive. [15:32:50] Can you say it backwards? [15:33:38] is that not commutative? [15:34:07] transitive would be A -> B -> C implies A -> C [15:34:32] ok, so brain fart, lol [15:34:45] but i get what you mean [15:35:22] the term means something slightly different in terms of a 'relationship'... [15:35:39] "As a nonmathematical example, the relation "is an ancestor of" is transitive. For example, if Amy is an ancestor of Becky, and Becky is an ancestor of Carrie, then Amy, too, is an ancestor of Carrie." [15:35:41] that. [15:36:23] right but is what your were saying that if A -> B then B → A ? [15:36:30] as far as the implied opposite, there's a contradiction when you go backwards. [15:36:36] a symmetric constraint is what WD calls it, right? [15:36:51] i.e is the opposite actually transitive, or anti-transitive [15:36:54] yeah [15:37:24] "On the other hand, "is the birth parent of" is not a transitive relation, because if Alice is the birth parent of Brenda, and Brenda is the birth parent of Claire, then Alice is not the birth parent of Claire. What is more, it is antitransitive: Alice can never be the birth parent of Claire." [15:37:28] ^ that [15:37:34] like if I say a Hoover is "the same as" a vaccum cleaner, is a vacuum cleaner "the same as" a Hoover? [15:38:07] and if I say Hoover -> Vacuume cleaner -> electric dustwhacker [15:38:19] (where -> means "say to be the same") [15:38:30] then Hoover -> electric dustwhacker [15:38:53] on wd properties (some, at least) have another property that is actually "defined as" representing the transitive relationship. [15:39:34] anyway, where are we going here? [15:39:35] not so much talking about sets as metaphysics [15:39:53] random ranbling, I think [15:40:00] there's a fine line 😬 [15:40:51] there's a reason logic and philosophy are almost the exact same thing [15:41:04] just published in different journals [15:41:51] anyway, I'm kinda resigned to there being an incredible amount a junk amongst all these properties [15:42:12] luckily I can't think why I'd need P460 for anything [15:42:28] as long as the properties I do need have a sane schema [15:42:40] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1696 (on a property item) should, if the idea makes sense in context, point at the 'backwards' relationship that should also hold [15:43:08] all these inverse properties are a nightmare [15:43:27] that should be provided automatically [15:43:29] and implicitly [15:43:34] A -> (relationship X) -> B should be transitive with B -> (relationship Y) -> A [15:43:48] yes [15:44:05] Sometimes it is, with 'inverse property label' as a derived statement. [15:44:41] But that doesn't actually create the inverse claim on the object [15:44:42] no i mean, wikibase should do it internally and atomically [15:44:58] you should be unable to create an inconsistency [15:45:15] I do not disagree. [15:45:50] and if there's an exception, well, your property is not truly an inverse property [15:46:02] I spend a lot of time (and find a lot of stuff to fix) by noticing that exact kind of thing whenever I mess with WD, it's actually the rabbit hole, lol. [15:46:26] it's a waste of time is what it is [15:47:01] ^ see above rant at dude about "parent org" and "subsidiary", a lot of the time you are using the wrong property [15:47:16] indeed [15:47:33] which is why auto-inverse would help [15:47:33] Or, saying that something is 'affiliated with' some membership organization instead of a member of it. [15:47:59] Yep [15:48:05] if I make A -x-> B and the system makes B -'x-> A for me [15:48:23] and that is wrong, then x is not the right property and it's my fault [15:48:50] problem is, ofc, people wouldn't pay attention to if the claim on the other item made sense [15:49:27] well no, but is that better than chucking in A -x-> B and completely ignoring B -?-> A? [15:50:16] though I guess you wouldn't have a constraint warning to home in on if you actually feel like spending time fixing stuff [15:50:34] anyway [15:50:37] new question [15:50:53] “and that is wrong, then x is not the right property and it's my fault” you’re assuming that, just because the statement is right, we want to save it all the time [15:50:59] is there a property for "volumes covers X - Y" [15:51:08] I for one do not want to have 34k “has part” statements on [[Q867541]] [15:51:08] 10[1] 10https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q867541 [15:51:20] even though we have 34k items with “part of” that item, most of which are presumably correct [15:51:23] I think the advantage to letting people create those inconsistencies is that it can point out places where the properties are vague (as a pile of oddness adds up) [15:51:38] Lucas_WMDE did you say you wanted someone to practice quickstatements on that item? BRB [15:51:41] right, but you don't need the inverse statements to actualyl exist [15:52:02] (But yeah, not always having transitive properties can be good!) [15:52:30] they're an artefact of the article -(part of)-> EB1911 relationshi [15:53:05] "has parts" is inconsistently used because it's too much, then what even is it for? [15:53:39] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q2002043 <- that [15:54:05] you can't actually query on it with confidence because you're not sure that it's actually used consistently across "domains" (e.g. say EB1911 and books of the bible) [15:54:14] if you are using "has parts" without "has parts of the class" and "object has role" then you are doing it wrong. [15:54:55] (and setting those, and the inverses, makes you actually think about if you have the right one) [15:55:24] you could make a helper popup [15:55:56] if those are correctly set, it should give you said info "to query on it" [15:56:38] especially since, btw, whatever you use as "role", the object should damn well be an instance of that. [15:56:38] "you said X -p-> Y; ohr: Z", this means "Y -p'-> Z; ohr: Z'" is that right? [15:57:10] otherwise the claim is nonsensical. [15:57:59] Lucas_WMDE: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P397 is another one [15:58:16] and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P398 [15:58:38] is the sun going to have (literally?) a million asteroids? [15:59:36] cos it's got quite a few: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q525 [15:59:47] the heck [15:59:58] either have them all, or have none [16:00:02] I hate that [16:01:01] you get into similar issues with "located in the administrative territorial entity" and "location" (as far as people using the wrong item in the wrong place) [16:01:07] https://w.wiki/46kD [16:01:08] it has 1354 entries [16:02:19] P131 (which can point at any random ass level of administrative subdivision) doesn't work, specifically, with stuff like addresses [16:03:54] there are ~250k+ asteroids in Wikidata, and pretty much all of them are bound to the Sun, so... [16:03:58] Looks like DeltaBot added them as a part of an inverse claim task :/ [16:05:15] headquarters location, otoh, actually works for addresses, since it always points at a 'city level' subdivision, and can use P131 as a qualifier for the 'state level' bit [16:06:01] something like an organization isn't a concrete object, it has no 'location'. [16:06:02] right, but the point is, if P398 (child astro. body) exists, what's it for if it's not complete? [16:06:13] "Earth"? [16:06:18] Q1? [16:06:30] I would assume "generally large crap" like Earth -> moon [16:06:45] perryprog, that is debatable [16:06:49] Probably [16:07:01] we is on a binary planet [16:07:51] I smell a "said to be the same as" [16:08:16] why can't you just have P397 (parent a.b.) and query it backwards? [16:08:37] or does that cause major query issues? [16:08:46] That's what I think it should be [16:09:16] Because there is no reason Q525 (Sun) should have a thousand entries of c a.b. [16:09:48] inductiveload, look at SPICE (the system used by nasa and jpl for orbital data) for an actually useful 'tree' of those things. [16:10:27] (where they refer stuff to a barycenter instead of the 'main body' [16:10:28] and if you're already restricting P398 to "large" bodies, then you're already operating on a tracable set of objects anyway [16:11:10] So just delete P398, problem solved [16:11:48] tldr, I don't understand what the point of inverse properties even is, unless it's working around a querying limitation, but in that case, you'll have so many inverses on the target that that item will become intractable [16:12:19] metaphysics [16:12:32] I feel like in some small scale situations (book authoring comes to mind) it makes sense, but otherwise... they're just annoying [16:13:14] right, but any body only has one (maaaaybe two for a highly weird system) "parent" [16:13:31] is the 'inverse property' actually an aspect/facet of the object class or instance, or is it a... 'generic', I guess, class. [16:13:41] Ah worth mentioning: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P398#Why_property_that_may_have_millions_or_billlions_of_values_is_considered_as_a_good_idea? [16:14:03] and if it's not in a parent-child relationship (IDK, say the barycentre is not within either body), then it's something else [16:14:26] like "part of: Q(the binary system)" [16:14:32] Ugh if this boils down to "Infoboxes use it" I'd be so annoyed [16:14:41] That an Insight is a car doesn't imply that "a type of car called an Insight" is an aspect of what a car is. [16:15:01] i mean, I'm down for that [16:15:04] But there are myriad things where that does apply. [16:15:07] but the concept is more general [16:15:21] what are any inverse properties for? [16:16:00] (other than setting off constraint violations and causing inconsistencies in the modelling, that is) [16:17:08] but surely traversing a property in reverse is basically the same? [16:17:15] in terms of SPARQL, say [16:17:26] I think they should be explicitly set only in cases where they are actually....hard how to put it, other than, like I said, actually an aspect of the object concept. [16:18:13] if the domain is small enough that it's not going to explode the item itself (i.e. not like the Sun right now), it won't be a query perf problem [16:18:25] Like, the USA wrt the states [16:20:04] I didn't look, but I would assume that most of the asteroids are incorrectly assigned in they are 'anchored on' the sun itself in wd [16:20:23] https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P398&diff=1501242652&oldid=1473339907 [16:21:05] "Ugh if this boils down to "..." <- surely that's a feature request on Wikibase rather than an excuse to completely screw over the actual data models [16:21:09] (physically, I mean, the 'sun' is not the dominant influence on their orbital motion, they are far enough out they should be on a barycenter [16:22:01] inductiveload, I don't think it's what the reason for them existing is. I suspect it was just unnoticed and the bot got a bit overenthusiastic. [16:23:29] yes but my question is what is P398 for then? [16:23:46] (and by extension pretty much all inverse properties) [16:24:06] because they seem to basically exist to blow holes in completeness and consistency [16:25:02] tbh, that one rather sucks badly [16:25:40] well..NUC Pre-1956 is about to get 764 "parts of" if we';re not careful [16:26:11] I'd probably support a deletion of P398 [16:26:24] I would agree. [16:26:28] Or a big change in its scope to be like "big crap only please" [16:26:33] me three [16:27:14] i mean, theoretically, that's still highly questionable IMO [16:27:15] It would make sense if limited to some kind of physical parameter... [16:27:24] stars are in galaxies and they're big [16:27:47] galaxies are in various tiers of clusters and they're really big and there are millions of them [16:28:10] are they "big CRAP" tho [16:28:10] I mean, in the physics sense, that 'child' only applies if it's something big enough to actually perturb the parent's orbit, otherwise it's just 'random orbital trash', lol. [16:28:28] I'm sure there's qualifier statements for "big crap only please". [16:29:48] https://w.wiki/46km [16:29:54] pretty incomplete for stars lol [16:30:06] If you really wanted to be anal-retentive about inclusion, point people at SPICE that I mentioned earlier (are their terms in the orbit of the parent for the alleged 'child', or a barycenter they should both belong to. [16:30:42] Jarnsax: are you talking about P397 (parent) now? [16:31:27] I'm talking about if the alleged 'parent' item should have a claim that something else is it's 'child' on it. [16:31:46] Also can we talk about how the reference system is kinda bad [16:32:06] what in general? [16:32:15] PP ^^ [16:32:45] Jarnsax: not an issue if you delete P397 (parent) [16:32:47] It's very difficult to fill out a full "citation" that's not just a bare URL [16:32:50] *delete child [16:33:09] Yep. [16:33:29] I just meant if it remained with limited scope. [16:33:30] i mean surely they will release the complete editing UI soon right? [16:33:41] It's supposed to get better? :O [16:33:51] lol, jk [16:34:03] wow [16:34:06] Got my hopes up [16:34:13] it still feels exactly like it did at launch [16:34:43] which was only like 8 years ago [16:35:31] and somehow all the data model pages are still "work in progress, lol" [16:36:04] * inductiveload uploaded an image: (5KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/rAdYYMfXoYzKqWrUBirkKpoF/2021-09-21_173552_382x86_screenshot.png > [16:36:15] what is that? [16:36:34] Wikidata:WikiProject Periodicals [16:37:08] i mean, it's not as bad as commons SDC, which literally had NO concrete modelling pages until I made one [16:38:19] SDC is kinda cool [16:38:38] i mean it has the potential to be AMAZING [16:38:41] Right [16:38:54] but literally no one can be arsed to even decide what peroperties to use [16:38:57] I feel like it's a lot more functionally concrete than WD in a lot if not all ways [16:38:59] for years [16:39:01] But then there's that problem, yeah [16:39:22] I made https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Illustrations [16:39:47] Sweet! [16:40:06] That's really awesome, wow [16:40:42] the only SDC modelling pagen ot marked with "work in progress" [16:41:09] * inductiveload uploaded an image: (217KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/FhouqdnrUciIaBcVJIponbfM/2021-09-21_174047_1030x704_screenshot.png > [16:41:18] it's been like that for 2 years! [16:44:56] inductiveload, You've probably never worked on OSM, have you? [16:45:09] i haven't actually integrated into https://ws-image-uploader.toolforge.org/ yet [16:45:19] "For example, this image of the fictional dog Lassie should have the statements dog (Q144), Rough Collie (Q38650), and Lassie (Q941640)." [16:45:33] https://i.imghurr.com/e/hmNUxY7TY6.png [16:45:35] >empty [16:45:36] a tiiiiiny bit [16:45:44] but it's not really for me [16:46:44] "MediaSearch currently only looks at the Wikidata objects that are directly listed as being depicted on the file itself; it is unable to make logical inferences, such as the fact that depicting a Sequoia entails depicting a tree." [16:46:45] The 'documentation' on the osm wiki as far as schemas is hopelessly bad and out of date, old proposals never closed on multiple ways to do the same thing. [16:46:49] ... I did not know that [16:46:59] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Depiction#Modelling_various_styles_of_depicts [16:47:06] Questions column [16:47:54] The only real 'documentation' is to query the database and see what is actually used. [16:48:03] seems like kind of an oversight lol [16:48:09] since that's pretty much the whole point [16:55:53] i tried to use it on holiday once to add a cafe [16:56:14] i was not in the right frame of mind to figure that out [16:56:21] oh, actually and a library [16:57:20] what're the propert(y|ies) for "volume goes from A to B"? [16:57:28] e.g. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q108610043 [16:58:04] "from" → str:en"Symbols"; "to" → str:en"Abhandlu" [16:58:25] inductiveload, the schemas for stuff like that are pretty much defined by the presets in the popular editing tools. [16:58:26] One other thing I wonder about regarding SDC is why we bother with stuff like "quantity": https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Würfelzucker_--_2018_--_3564.jpg [16:58:55] i mean I could see why you might want picture of 2 whales [16:58:57] sa [16:58:59] * say [16:59:01] true [16:59:07] Or three kittens [16:59:13] (because who wouldn't want to see that) [16:59:16] (just don't go look on the wiki unless you want to find multiple ideas about how to describe stuff like roof shape, lol [16:59:16] but NEVER 4! [16:59:19] that's too many [16:59:28] Only prime numbers of kittens [16:59:31] you'd die of cute [16:59:48] yes, otherwise the cute harmonics build up [17:00:03] Jarnsax: i'd a nerd, but not that kind of nerd [17:00:40] not sure shape: cuboid; is needed [17:00:45] it's a sugar cube [17:01:21] huh, there's no Q(sugar lump) [17:03:05] inductiveload, https://pasteboard.co/1A0rcGt43SAp.jpg [17:03:39] KITTENS [17:03:44] (that was about two days after I caught them in my back yard) [17:03:45] thanks fior that [17:04:04] i suggest a crop before you submit for quality image [17:04:11] lol [17:04:15] one of mine: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cat%27s_belly_in_sunlight.jpg [17:04:34] cute [17:04:39] Enjoy the lame overexposure [17:05:05] make it black and white then it's art [17:05:19] o tru [17:05:26] (don't let Ansel Adams hear you) [17:05:48] I still like the original hover cat image a lot.... whoever caught it was a very good photographer. [17:05:59] of course the blown highlights are an artistic expression of the innocence of the subject [17:06:51] this one? https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/bullet-cat [17:07:00] https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/404/397/6a9.jpg yeah [17:07:12] or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:HoverCat.jpg [17:07:29] rofl [17:07:39] i do wonder about that license [17:07:43] that smells of copyvio, yeah [17:07:45] but w/e [17:07:46] No exif [17:08:00] and such a low res [17:08:17] yeah why would you upload to flickr at that resolution [17:08:48] https://www.flickr.com/photos/geekshots/ [17:08:56] and that's the only one of that cat [17:09:12] yeah license laundering I bet [17:09:22] Yeah, back when I was a commons admin, those would have been byebye [17:09:24] you smell that? [17:09:38] that smells like someone else's problem [17:09:40] lol yeah me too [17:09:45] * perryprog grumps over to file a DR [17:10:04] Oh should probably shovel through the reverse image search first. I hate doing that for these viral images though. [17:10:06] https://www.flickr.com/photos/geekshots/2233425578/ <- nice watermark [17:10:23] oh nice that's good evidence [17:10:48] there are lots of images of random cats [17:11:23] argh why does RDF need a login [17:11:44] i wanna see their library secrets [17:12:24] *RDA even [17:12:34] also nice website, nerds: https://www.rdatoolkit.org/ [17:13:50] image-based menus with no ARIA attribs or even a title attrib [17:14:07] https://www.rdatoolkit.org/sites/default/files/inline-images/RDA_AccessToolkit_0.jpg [17:14:33] not even in a

[17:14:55] I nominated it [17:15:15] semantics and accessibility #fail, from an organisation dedicated to...semantically sensible cataloging [17:20:13] if I was on twatter I'd shame them [17:20:47] is there a hashtag for bad websites with bad semantics? [17:23:35] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q29572385 subclass of "color" [17:23:37] ehhhhhh] [17:24:21] rdacc:1002... (full message at https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/libera.chat/babc43dd98f9a995d45e79f6ce8e973725bcccb2) [17:24:31] > or black or white and another colour. [17:24:33] wat [17:24:44] oh [17:24:54] that's right [17:25:04] (black or white) and antoher color [17:25:09] my bad [17:26:34] Jarnsax: i guess we also need to map http://www.rdaregistry.info/termList/ [17:27:25] do we need a CURIE property too(?!) [17:29:48] oh my god theres more: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P5967 [17:29:53] no one uses this [17:30:38] * inductiveload uploaded an image: (10KiB) < https://libera.ems.host/_matrix/media/r0/download/matrix.org/baciNAUicMDzPgofOOBEmzKf/2021-09-21_183026_960x71_screenshot.png > [17:30:46] pretty sure that's not what it means either [17:35:50] and it's not used on any of the examples in the property proposal [17:45:17] "Jarnsax: i guess we also need to..." <- ah it exists, but just hilariously (?) incomplete: https://w.wiki/46mc [18:13:58] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4354 different from https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4113790 [18:14:11] i mean...that's true.... [18:14:18] lol [18:15:01] I'm sure there's some vandal or LTA out there that just likes marking totally random items as "different from" each other [18:44:46] I'm trying to device if there's a distinction between "these items are mistaken for each other" and "these items are conflated with each other" [18:45:03] I suppose the former means you are aware there is a difference but you got it wrong [19:04:38] yup [19:05:46] But are there examples of P460 like that? [19:06:09] It's a bit hard to say since you need to know the intent of the statement "a is the same as b" [19:07:31] I mean, good examples? Probably not. But I'm confident that's what the distinction is. [19:26:19] There must be a better property for the names [19:27:29] I think they're "cognate" [21:23:30] perryprog: phew https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property%3AP460 [21:23:37] :D