Last modified: 2014-11-15 21:49:00 UTC

Wikimedia Bugzilla is closed!

Wikimedia migrated from Bugzilla to Phabricator. Bug reports are handled in Wikimedia Phabricator.
This static website is read-only and for historical purposes. It is not possible to log in and except for displaying bug reports and their history, links might be broken. See T51554, the corresponding Phabricator task for complete and up-to-date bug report information.
Bug 49554 - allow statements on properties
allow statements on properties
Status: REOPENED
Product: MediaWiki extensions
Classification: Unclassified
WikidataRepo (Other open bugs)
unspecified
All All
: Normal major with 3 votes (vote)
: ---
Assigned To: Wikidata bugs
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Categor...
u=dev c=story p=0
:
: 45676 (view as bug list)
Depends on: 72314 72879 73302 63068 63069 63070 63072 66425 67421 68379 70035 72124 72671
Blocks: 57843 59680
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2013-06-13 23:24 UTC by Kunal Mehta (Legoktm)
Modified: 2014-11-15 21:49 UTC (History)
17 users (show)

See Also:
Web browser: ---
Mobile Platform: ---
Assignee Huggle Beta Tester: ---


Attachments

Description Kunal Mehta (Legoktm) 2013-06-13 23:24:45 UTC
Some Wikidatans have come up with a system of machine readable constraint templates that are added on the talk page. There's a list of these at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Category:Properties_with_constraints, and a summary at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Database_reports/Constraint_violations/Summary which shows different violations.

Right now bot authors have to write code to manually parse these templates, it would be great if we could have these constraints stored in the data model itself.

The software wouldn't necessarily need to enforce them, just store them.
Comment 1 denny vrandecic 2013-07-01 11:59:16 UTC
A RFC would be good with a little bit of detail on how to do this. My first idea would be to include statements for properties, but I am unsure if this would be sufficient?
Comment 2 Lydia Pintscher 2013-10-08 23:03:29 UTC
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat#Property_Metadata as a start
Comment 3 Lydia Pintscher 2013-11-04 14:38:34 UTC
*** Bug 45676 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 5 filceolaire 2014-03-13 20:45:35 UTC
I think it could be good if 'Domain' and 'Range' statements link to query pages (when we have these) rather than Qitems.
Comment 6 Lydia Pintscher 2014-04-03 14:31:24 UTC
We're getting close to finishing this feature. One open important question is: Do we need qualifiers and sources on all this or are simple property/value pairs enough?  Usecases please :)
Comment 7 John F. Lewis 2014-04-03 14:46:29 UTC
Just normal statements - I don't see a need for us to qualify simple Wikidata-internal information.
Comment 8 Gerard Meijssen 2014-04-03 15:47:50 UTC
.. The French have a system of nationality whereby you can be "French" because of the law without being considered to be French. So the Nationality would be French and the qualifier would be a pointer to this law. 

NB this is just one use case.. There are many more.
Comment 9 Lydia Pintscher 2014-04-03 15:51:06 UTC
(In reply to Gerard Meijssen from comment #8)
> .. The French have a system of nationality whereby you can be "French"
> because of the law without being considered to be French. So the Nationality
> would be French and the qualifier would be a pointer to this law. 
> 
> NB this is just one use case.. There are many more.

That is for item pagess. This bug is about statements on property pages :)
Comment 10 Gerard Meijssen 2014-04-03 16:19:41 UTC
There are more countries like this.. When you flag it as being applicable for a country, you can query it.
Comment 11 dacuetu 2014-04-03 16:28:42 UTC
(In reply to Gerard Meijssen from comment #10)
> There are more countries like this.. When you flag it as being applicable
> for a country, you can query it.

Gerard, I think you are getting it wrong... this is to allow entering statements on property pages like this one:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P27

If you try to add statements to that property page, you will see that it is not possible at the moment.
Comment 12 filceolaire 2014-04-03 18:25:30 UTC
These statements effectively become a machine readable definition of a property:
* Domain
* Range
* Subproperty of
* Symmetric property
* Inverse property of

The only case where I can see a need for additional info is to provide a link to the discussion where that statement (definition) was agreed. i.e. a link to a wikidata discussion. 

If that is a problem then maybe we could ask editors to enter a summary when they change a property or a statement about a property. Could we start to do this for changes to the property name as well?
Comment 13 Laddo 2014-04-04 12:58:23 UTC
I agree sourcing such properties is not relevant.

I believe that qualifiers might be a good thing, for example for a "start date" when Domain or Allowed values need to be different starting from a certain date (e.g. after geopolitical changes).

I hope that the community will agree to add some more text properties, like: purpose, usage... lack of proper property documentation proved pretty painful in some cases.
Comment 14 Lydia Pintscher 2014-04-23 14:11:29 UTC
done now but still needs reviews before deployment
Comment 15 Zell Faze 2014-06-12 12:32:44 UTC
Is there a patch or series of patches in Gerrit for this that I can monitor to see how review is progressing?
Comment 16 Lydia Pintscher 2014-06-30 13:33:30 UTC
(In reply to Zell Faze from comment #15)
> Is there a patch or series of patches in Gerrit for this that I can monitor
> to see how review is progressing?

What's blocking it at the moment is the new serialization format. There current state of that is that there are a number of small things needing fixing to make sure we don't break anything.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.


Navigation
Links