Property talk:P1324
Documentation
public source code repository
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1324#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1324#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1324#mandatory qualifier, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1324#mandatory qualifier, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1324#Item P275, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1324#Type Q7397, Q9143, Q35127, Q213369, Q3133368, Q15184295, Q11266439, Q17451, Q192776, Q20819677, Q317623, Q49848, Q1172284, Q11173, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1324#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1324#Scope, SPARQL
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
Discussion
editDead links
editArchive URL is not a valid qualifier. Ogoorcs (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Change protocol constraint to version control system
editThe protocol (P2700) constraint for this property is an unnatural requirement to be made mandatory. It also creates confusion e.g. regarding Git (Q186055) vs Git Wire Protocol (Q53755957).
I propose making this constraint non-mandatory, creating a property for version control system (Q3257930), and adding that as a constraint (also non-mandatory because the source code may only be made available as tarball archives). Thoughts?
Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics/FLOSS --Waldyrious (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
- Support Using version control system (Q3257930) as a property to specify the version control system (VCS) just makes more sense than using protocol (P2700). I also do not think that we need the protocol qualifier to distinguish between a git clone URL and a git web interface because this is already in the URL as
git://
andhttps://
, respectively. Would it be possible to batch-change protocol to VCS, change Git Wire Protocol (Q53755957) to Git (Q186055) and remove HTTP (Q8777) and HTTPS (Q44484)? —Dexxor (talk) 12:41, 4 June 2020 (UTC)- I also somehow Support this suggestion, but I'm also interested in discovering why it was mandatory. --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 05:56, 6 June 2020 (UTC)
- I also see the issue that it is unclear what the protocol is in this case. I generally prefer not to create more properties for single use cases but if there is no better idea of how to fix this issue. For the "mandatory qualifier constraint" I think we should keep it – for nearly every constraint there will always be a few exceptions, that is why the have the distinction between constraints that are mandatory constraint (Q21502408) and those that aren't. If we don't have this constraint only few people will add the qualifier. The few exceptions are not enough to outweigh the large benefit. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 20:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
- MichaelSchoenitzer, just to be sure: when you say to keep the mandatory constraint, you mean in the new VCS property, not in the existing protocol one, right? --Waldyrious (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- If there's a new property then yes. I want to avoid having an even larger number of statements without any VCS stated, since the information isn't much worth if you don't know what VCS the link is used for. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 12:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
- MichaelSchoenitzer, just to be sure: when you say to keep the mandatory constraint, you mean in the new VCS property, not in the existing protocol one, right? --Waldyrious (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Since there has been agreement for using a VCS property, I've gone ahead and created Wikidata:Property proposal/version control system. Please voice your thoughts there, Dexxor, Valerio Bozzolan and MichaelSchoenitzer. --Waldyrious (talk) 11:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
Update: I just came across a related discussion at Talk:Q186055#Git Protocol — pinging User:Konstin, User:Daask and User:LiberatorG to chime in here and in the property discussion at Wikidata:Property proposal/version control system --Waldyrious (talk) 09:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Because the current use of the protocol (P2700) qualifier has created confusion, I support the new property. However, in order to make use of the URL it is necessary to know which version control system to use it with, so that is why it is mandatory. For example if the repository URL is from Mercurial (Q476543), it's not going to work with
or git clone
, and the user shouldn't have to try it with every possible version control system to see what works. –LiberatorG (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
svn checkout
Update: the new property has been created as version control system (P8423). I'm currently adding it to all the repositories with protocol (P2700) = Git (Q186055) or Git Wire Protocol (Q53755957), using QuickStatements (Q20084080), but perhaps a proper bot would be a more adequate way to migrate all the current values of protocol (P2700). --Waldyrious (talk) 16:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks for updating these items! Since each repo only needs to be updated once and not continually, I would expect QuickStatements (Q20084080) to be fine. Can you remove the redundant protocol (P2700) at the same time that you add version control system (P8423)? It shouldn't be a big deal, but the chance of error is reduced if there is less time where the information might be updated between the two changes, and also it would be nice if those that have a software project on their watch list saw those changes together rather than everyone having to review the changes twice. –LiberatorG (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)