Talk:Q12131447

Sources for "mineral resource"

Sources of definitions of the English term "mineral resource":

• https://serc.carleton.edu/integrate/teaching_materials/mineral_resources/student_materials/unit1reading.html -- mineral or rock
• https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/mineral-resource -- solid
• https://www2.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/minresources.htm -- volume of rock
• https://mrmr.cim.org/media/1128/cim-definition-standards_2014.pdf -- solid
• https://percstandard.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/PERC_2021_DEFINITION_Summary_Sheet_RELEASE_01Oct21.pdf -- solid

Thus, the term only covers solids. If this is not the intended defining term of the entity, the English label needs to be changed. It is vital to identify the defining term (whatever the language) and sources of its definitions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dan Polansky, You ignore the interlingual differences. See content of the articles in other languages: FR: Une ressource minérale est une concentration de matériau présent naturellement, sous forme, solide, liquide ou gazeuse... RO: Resursele terestre se caracterizeaza prin resurse de: minereu de fier, petrol, gaze naturale, fosforite, carbune, metale pretioase... PT: Outros recursos minerais são o cloreto de sódio, enxofre, fosfatos, nitratos, areia, argila, cascalho, amianto, água, petróleo e carvão mineral. Only the definition in sv:Mineraltillgång correlates with English-language sources. Leon II (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

What is the primary term defining this entity, and in what language? When that is clarified, we may remove terms in other languages as inapplicable. For a broader concept, there is already mineral resource (Q889659), currently labeled as "mineral resource or fluid or gaseous mined resource", and e.g. French "ressource minérale" is already entered there. There is no point in making Q12131447 a duplicate of Q889659; what makes sense is to dedicate Q12131447 to English "mineral resource". --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Q12131447 (this entity) was originally created for Ukrainian "Мінеральні ресурси". If that is the defining term, then everything else needs changing to reflect that, and it is essential to provide a comprehensive definition and characterization in the Description field in English. In mineral resource (Q889659), the Ukrainian label is "корисні копалини" and the defining term is probably German Bodenschatz. Can you provide a link for a definition of Ukrainian "Мінеральні ресурси"? How does Ukrainian "корисні копалини" differ from "Мінеральні ресурси"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

From definition by Ukrainian МГЕ, "мінеральні ресурси" are "корисні копалини" in deposits estimated as possible for extraction and processing. This definition is, in fact, equivalent to the one given in the article "Mineral resource classification": "A 'Mineral Resource' is a concentration or occurrence of material of intrinsic economic interest in or on the earth's crust in such form, quality and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction" ("material of intrinsic economic interest in or on the earth's crust" = "корисні копалини"). Leon II (talk) 20:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That definition is from W:Mineral_resource_classification#Mineral_Resources, but what is the authoritative source of that definition? And what are authoritative sources of definition of Ukrainian "мінеральні ресурси", that is, their URLs? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:56, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

And that definition is dubious: "material of intrinsic economic interest in or on the earth's crust" would include timber and surface water sources such as lakes (timber is on crust and so are surface water sources), but that cannot reasonably be "mineral resource"; having an authoritative source rather than relying on Wikipedia (which anyone can edit) is vital. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

The source of definition from W:Mineral_resource_classification#Mineral_Resources is https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-410438-9.00029-7 (section "What are Mineral Resources?"). Primary source is The JORC Code. 2012 Edition, page 11 (this source, by the way, is provided in the article Mineral_resource_classification). "Мінеральні ресурси": https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332833923_Mala_girnica_enciklopedia_t_2_Za_redakcieu_VSBileckogo_-_Doneck_Donbas_2007_-_652_s (P. 133).--Leon II (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Leon II: (Outdent) As for The JORC Code. 2012 Edition (Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserve), from https://www.jorc.org/docs/JORC_code_2012.pdf: "A ‘Mineral Resource’ is a concentration or occurrence of solid material of economic interest in or on the Earth’s crust in such form, grade (or quality), and quantity that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction. The location, quantity, grade (or quality), continuity and other geological characteristics of a Mineral Resource are known, estimated or interpreted from specific geological evidence and knowledge, including sampling." Boldface is mine. Thus, it is solid by definition per JORC Code. Still, the definition is problematic since timber is solid and on the Earth's crust; one must probably read the definition with common sense and not entirely literally, noting that timber is of no geological interest and that "mineral" cannot possibly refer to timber. Further non-literal reading may be required since it intends to refer to naturally occurring solid material, not to any material on the Earth's crust, e.g. steel placed somewhere. Perhaps the word "extraction" plays a role as well, excluding materials that are not "extracted". In any case, they require solid.

Can you please quote the Ukrainian definition here? I would put it to Google translate, and see whether the result is comprehensible. I speak Czech but no Ukrainian. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

МІНЕРАЛЬНІ РЕСУРСИ – сукупність запасів корисних копалин в надрах регіону, країни, групи країн, континенту, світу в цілому, яка підраховується з урахуванням існуючих кондицій на корисні копалини і досягнутого рівня їх переробки. ... За галузями використання мінеральні ресурси поділяються на паливно-енергетичні (нафта, газ природний, вугілля, горючі сланці, торф, уранові руди); руди чорних металів (залізні, манґанові, хромові і ін.); руди кольорових і легуючих металів (алюмінію, міді, свинцю, цинку, нікелю, кобальту, вольфраму, молібдену, олова, стибію, ртуті і ін.); руди рідкісних і благородних металів; гірничохімічна сировина (фосфорити, апатити, кам’яна, калійна і магнезійна солі, сірка і її сполуки, борні руди, бром і йодні розчини, барит, флюорит і ін.); коштовні і виробні камені; нерудна індустріальна сировина (слюда, графіт, азбест, тальк, кварц і ін.); нерудні будівельні матеріали (цементна і скляна сировина, мармури, шиферні сланці, глини, туфи, базальт, ґраніт); гідромінеральні (підземні прісні і мінералізовані води, термальні і ін.). Наведена класифікація є умовною. Застосування деяких корисних копалин може бути різноманітним, наприклад, нафта і газ є також сировиною для хімічної промисловості, вапняк і інші карбонатні породи – сировиною для металургії, хімічної промисловості і промисловості будівельних матеріалів. Поняття мінеральних ресурсів є історичним, тобто змінюється у часі і залежить від рівня розвитку суспільства, від потреб виробництва, а також від рівня техніки і можливостей економіки.--Leon II (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that in the sources of different countries the definitions will be slightly different (in cases where there is no worldwide accepted interpretation, standard, or scientific definition). Wikidata, in my opinion, should not track the differences in the most minor details, but try to give a generalized definition. Otherwise, we will come to the point where we will have to create local clones for each such entity.--Leon II (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I will look into it later. We do need to draw salient distinctions in concept scopes: there is quite a difference between mineral resources on one hand, and a concept that includes also oil and gas, groundwater and even surface water sources on the other hand. That is not "slightly" different, in my view. The "mineral source" seems to be an especially tricky case because of the international terminological mismatch; my guess is that this kind of problem usually does not arise. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Google Translate seems to work real well. Thus, the following items are included in the Ukrainian term: en:"mineral resources" (e.g. ores), oil, gas, underground fresh and mineralized water, thermal water, etc. The concept mineral resource (Q889659) seems very similar. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I created mineral resource (Q115766999) dedicated to English "mineral resource" and edited mineral resource (Q12131447) to better match the Ukrainian concept. These "mineral resource" entities are cans of worms, from international match standpoint. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

As for the definition precision, it is not very important from interwikis, but it is important for statements: without a comprehensive and accurate definition, it is impossible to know what class-of relationships are supposed to hold, especially for the cases where the national terminologies differ. Maybe there is some solution by using qualifiers in the statements or such; I do not know. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Questions raised here largely overlap with these in Talk:Q889659. I find recent label and description changes in related items rather messy. English label should be the actual English-language term used outside Wikidata for given concept, not an ad hoc description. Description field instead is meant for descriptive text and for disambiguation purpose (see Help:Label#Labels can be ambiguous). Also item subjects and labels shouldn't be considered specific to particular Wikimedia project or language, nor should labels/descriptions include other sorts of odd editorial commentary like that currently in Q12137587.

As already pointed out in other talk page, "mineral resource" in English language is homonymous (that is also per sources listed at the top of this page). There are probably 10s of "mineral resource" definitions, in English-language texts and in other languages, that vary to some degree. This doesn't mean it's necessarily practical to have as many "mineral resource" items in Wikidata. Definitions that use different wording or emphasis, but don't contradict each other, are not necessarily for different things. If definitions in Wikipedia articles contradict a little (which isn't necessarily intentional), then we may as well for a start tie these in Wikidata under a slightly broader description.

Based on existing Wikipedia articles we could start by distinguishing two concepts (both commonly denoted as "mineral resource" in English):

1. Q889659 – mineral resource in broad sense ~ Bodenschatz ~ "mineral" understood as "any substance that comes from the Earth"[1]
2. Q12131447 – mineral resource in strict sense ~ мінеральні ресурси ~ "mineral" understood as inorganic (usually) solid substance (~ mineral (Q7946))

I tried to make this distinction more clear a little earlier in these items. I suggest we restore respectively this and this revision, and then revise and build upon that if some Wikipedia has a third article which doesn't fall under either of these concepts, or if Wikidata has some other particular structural need to make an additional distinction (definition includes/excludes solids and/or gas and/or fluids and/or groundwater and/or organic substances etc.). 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:B4DC:C579:1FA:6D6D 13:04, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree. Leon II (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I suggest you start using the Wikidata methodology of semantic network and build up your definition claims using structured assertions. I admit that the English label I created fails the attestation criterion and is thereby suboptimal, but it is accurate. In so far as the label should be an English one that is actually in use and denotes the concept, the English label would need to be left blank, or Wikidata has to clarify what to do in a situation like that. An English label that no one uses but is accurate is preferable to an English label in use that is grossly inaccurate.

Using the semantic network methodology, you may start building up the defining claims using specific sources, item by item, as structured data. Then, once the defining structured claims are put together, a textual definition can be adjusted accordingly. It is vital that each defining claim you make is traced to a source and that you state the label that the source uses if the label is non-English one. Wikidata is actually perfectly set up for this task. Put differently, Wikidata is well setup for clarification of interlingual terminological confusion. It even has the concept of deprecation of a statement so one can report what one finds in a particular source via a statement, trace the statement to the source, state the label of the concept used in the source and later decide that you do not want that claim and deprecate it. It is remarkable, but is not easy. It is the essence of Wikidata as also being a definitional network. Not too many entries have this done; I was recently learning how to do it.

Whatever you decide to do, make sure you know what the definition is and where you get it from, and do not use an English label that actually does not match that definition. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:24, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Labels are supposed to reflect common usage (see Help:Label). Label (common name) per se is just a label, it often doesn't describe the subject in any way, it may be confusing to some degree, and it necessarily isn't meant to be taken literally. These invented ad hoc labels definitely don't reflect common usage. If we don't know the English-language term, then I agree it's often better to leave English label just empty. However in this case common name in English exists, the sources that you provided at the top yourself show that "mineral resource" is the common English name deonting both this concept as well as mineral resource in broad sense.

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "semantic network methodology". Strictly speaking Wikidata isn't a semantic network. Wikidata's focus isn't on definitions, we use more broad descriptions here. Complete defintions can be found rather from Wikipedia. Wikidata doesn't even have built-in way to source labels/descriptons as you can see. Certain aspects of concepts's defintion, represented in form of statements, of course can and should be referenced. However, if you make these statements based on some random source in one language, and at the same ignore all other sources reflected in attached Wikipedia articles and also ignore the way items are used so far, then you are just making a mess. "Mineral resource" in English as well as "Bodenschatz" in German etc. have broad and strict definition(s), and appropriate ones need to be found for particular item.

Just in case I mention that Wikidata has separate structure for words and their language-specific attributes (see Wikidata:Lexicographical data). You should look for this structure if you are interested in English "mineral resource" and its various senses in particular. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:5C5:D3C7:B8DE:D307 09:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

As for "Labels are supposed to reflect common usage (see Help:Label). Label (common name) per se is just a label, it often doesn't describe the subject in any way, it may be confusing to some degree, and it necessarily isn't meant to be taken literally.": Quote me policy on that. And get a pseudonymous user name. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

We have to remember that labels are used to identify concepts. Thus, when someone is trying to say "X is Y" based on a source, they are trying to interpret a term Y in the source to mean concept Y. Thus, when a user types a string into a field, candidate concepts appear. Terminological precision is vital for this purpose, otherwise the whole ontological effort runs into significant hurdles. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:35, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This is what Help:Label is largely about: "reflect common usage", "labels can be ambiguous" (quotes). The rest what I said directly results from it. What you say ("labels are used to identify concepts") contradicts it and obviously cannot be true as there are many common names that denote multiple concepts (sometimes even tens of things, e.g. search for something like "Spring"). In Wikidata a concept is identified by a combination of label and description (that's why this combination technically cannot recur in multiple items). Generally, if one uses a source then they are supposed to check the context in which the term occurs to determine if the source is about the same subject. The subject usually cannot be determined based on term alone. If Wikidata has an item for person John Smith, and you find this person's birth date from some source then you also need to determine that John Smith in source is not some other John Smith with the same name etc. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:C858:16D4:A1E0:D55 16:42, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Strict sourcing of labels

I would like to ask people to avoid adding labels in languages that are not needed for interwiki, especially in languages that the adding editor does not speak. Or only add a label together with a link to a corresponding definition.

Wikidata serves 1) interwiki; 2) as a semantic network, both for definitions and assertions. For the latter purpose, accuracy and nearly exact match are vital, whereas for the former, it is not so critical. And once you add a label for a language and you have your source (at least one), you can add link to that source to one of the key defining statements, e.g. that the source is of any of solid, fluid and gas. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:18, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

An item is supposed to tie sitelinks to Wikipedia articles that are about the same subject, item description in all languages is supposed to be for more or less the same thing. Labels/descriptions are not supposed to be filled in language-by-language basis, independent from data in other languages. See my remark on lexicographical data in previous topic. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:5C5:D3C7:B8DE:D307 09:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are fundamentally unreliable, as for statements and terminology. For each label, provide objective evidence for where it is defined, either as a structured statement in the entry, or if that is too much for you, here on this talk page, which some may find easier. In any case, do not enter inventions and labels that cannot be verified to mean what the entry defines the concept to mean. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

"for more or less the same thing": I disagree. No inventions please, and no more-of-less inaccuracies. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

This is true that Wikipedia articles can be unreliable, but then you should first go and fix/source these articles. Generally, Wikidata items have been created based on sets of Wikipedia articles in different languages. If you ignore this and just repurpose (redefine) items then how do users know if sitelinks are attached to correct items. If a structural need emerges after an item that has different contradicting defintion than Wikipedia's definition, then please create new item instead of just messing up existing items.

I say "more or less the same thing" because definitions for the same thing inevitably vary to some degree in different sources (also true for the very same sources that you list at the top). Ideally of course an item should tie Wikipedia articles where the subject is exactly the same, but in reality things aren't black and white. It's a matter of practicality to determine which definitions are fundamentally different and warrant different/new item, as already explained above. Above I already explained what and why per Wikipedia articles and per other sources (again, including the very same sources that you listed at the top) appears to be the main distinction between two "mineral resource" concepts in this case.

no inventions please – As far as I can see you are the only one here who invents things (if not enitre Wikidata) and these ad hoc labels in particular. 2001:7D0:81FD:BC80:C858:16D4:A1E0:D55 16:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Please point me to a guidelines or a discussion that explains what to do in a situation like this, where the authority control of a concept traces to Ukrainian or German label, and therefore, the structural definition of a concept is based on texts in Ukrainian and German, and no fitting English label can be found. I am not interested in anonymous opinions from someone, who knows who, online.

Wikidata is also a Wikiontology and Wikiconcepts and is set up for great conceptual accuracy. From Help:Label:

• "The concept represented by the item is defined by the statements not the description. If you need to distinguish an item from another item, add the right statements with sources before you add a special description. Also when searching items don't rely on the description's correctness, check the statements to ensure you found the right item"

Boldface mine. There should be a longer explanation somewhere, but I do not know where. This whole thing should be machine-interpretable with great accuracy: when a machine sees a label in a text, it should try to find which concept the label refers to, and the choice of concepts is based on the labels that are found in Wikidata. That is why the label should nearly always be one of the multiple actual names for the concept, where the concept is identified structurally. Read the boldface above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:39, 25 December 2022 (UTC)