Property talk:P5831

Active discussions


[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
  Allowed entity types are lexeme (Q51885771): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5831#allowed entity types, hourly updated report, SPARQL (new)
  Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5831#scope, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)

Only for lexemes, or also for forms?Edit

Should this property only be used for (the main statements of) lexemes? Can we use it for forms as well? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: This was already discussed during property proposal, see In short it can be used on forms but it will be harder to write tools and queries if examples will be in two places. There will be sense qualifier too once senses become available. KaMan (talk) 16:00, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Oh, yeah. I see that examples should also go under senses. It is unclear to me from the discussion whether we should refrain from using forms altogether. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I suppose it is best to avoid them. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 16:18, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
@Fnielsen: It's 2 years later now and we have Senses. The constraint seems like it can be removed now for Senses? Here's my example: shot up (L314213) --Thadguidry (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
@Thadguidry: I now always put the usage example on the lexeme level and use the qualifiers to note which form and sense, see, e.g., fortsættelse (L314203). I think that is the most canonical way. It may be that I was not aware of the demonstrates form (P5830), and demonstrates sense (P6072) was created 3rd November 2018, — a month after I posed the question. I suggest we move your examples to the lexeme level and use the qualifiers. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 06:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I have taken the liberty to move one of the examples at shot up (L314213) to the lexeme levels to show the way that I think it should be used. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 07:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Fnielsen: That way would make it less clear on both usage and programmatic access and querying. It is more clear to quickly query or see the kinds of senses (which are concise, translatable meanings) and then get further usage example of how that meaning is used. Your way flips this around and makes it harder not easier via programmatic access to quickly assess usage examples, it requires an indirection lookup, rather than a straight predicate entailment. The community did not refer to the Lexeme data model when they created and supported demonstrates sense (P6072) which breaks the Lexeme data model and its documentation. For clarity, just read and look at the very bottom orange box of the SVG image on the Lexeme documentation page. Translations, synonyms, connotation, register, usage example, etc. are Statements on the Senses. I suggest that demonstrates sense (P6072) be deprecated and folks follow the Lexeme data model to allow easier querying. Certainly the data model is only 1 way to model Lexicographical data, but no one mentioned why doing it the recommended way caused a problem and then decided to create demonstrates sense (P6072). I agree with data model where it shows the grey Statements box to hold statements about the Lemma itself like derived-from, region, period, homonym, etc. And then statements about Senses, should go on each Sense, as shown in the SVG image. --Thadguidry (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Property to use to indicate origin of exampleEdit

Which property should we use to indicate the origin of the text (if there is any). For instance, for gammel (L31494) I have exemplified it with "Så mødte han en gammel heks på landevejen" which is a quote from The Tinderbox (Q1167862). Currently, I have used stated in (P248), but is there a better one? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 15:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: Why do you need special property for it? There is reference section in every statement and lots of properties to be used in it. See Help:Sources. See for example how I use it in Rosja (L31207). KaMan (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
@KaMan: What bothered me was the wording of stated in (P248) "stated in", - as if it was a fact. "quoted from" would be a more fitting wording. But I suppose that stated in (P248) is good enough as the property to use. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 15:34, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
Return to "P5831" page.