Wikidata:Property proposal/relative date properties
relative time edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | signed time difference between two entities, the other entity being the one indicated by the [ID OF THE OTHER PROPERTY] statement with the same rank and qualifiers (negative value indicates the other entity occurs later) |
|---|---|
| Data type | Number (not available yet) |
| Allowed units | any time units |
| Example 1 | Easter − 47 days (Q14914941) → −47 days |
| Example 2 | MISSING |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
| Planned use | addition to the Easter ±n days items |
| See also | point in time (P585), [ID OF THE OTHER PROPERTY] |
Motivation
See the section below; this property does not make any sense without the other. Jc86035 (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Oppose I would only want to have store times in a proper datatype for it. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 10:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: I think time index (P4895) could be used for the same intended purposes, so this property might not be necessary even if the other property is created. Jc86035 (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Not done Not enough support.--Micru (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
reference time edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | the entity with which [ID OF THE OTHER PROPERTY], with the same rank and qualifiers, indicates a time difference |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Allowed values | item that has a point in time, or item with a Wikidata property (P1687) statement (in reference to the statement(s) for that property) |
| Example 1 | Easter − 47 days (Q14914941) → date of Easter (Q51224536) |
| Example 2 | MISSING |
| Example 3 | MISSING |
| Planned use | addition to the Easter ±n days items |
| See also | point in time (P585), [ID OF THE OTHER PROPERTY] |
Motivation
Currently the items listed at Help:Easter related dates are not actually formally linked. This and future subproperties could be useful for other recurring things like record charts, but I didn't want to propose lots of relative equivalents to existing date properties without any consensus that there should be relative time properties. The reasons two properties are needed are because two different value datatypes are needed (the time and the other item), and to ensure that relationships can also be stated with both properties as qualifiers. Jc86035 (talk) 08:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Comment I think it should be a qualifier of your proposing "relative time" property, because there can be mulitiple relative date in one item. And the name can be simply "reference date". --Okkn (talk) 02:16, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- Why not use the general property relative to (P2210)?--GZWDer (talk) 09:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- @GZWDer, Okkn: If relative to (P2210) were used, it wouldn't be possible to use relative date/time properties as qualifiers themselves, because qualifiers can't have their own qualifiers. I would be fine with calling the second property "reference date"/"reference time". If there are multiple "relative times", then presumably they are distinguished using properties, qualifiers and rank, so there could be one matching "reference time" for each statement or qualifier; if a "relative start time" property were to be created, it would need a matching "start time reference time". Jc86035 (talk) 11:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think "time index" works fine for this.
--- Jura 16:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC) - Oppose Nepalicoi (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Not done Not enough support.--Micru (talk) 13:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)