Push-f

More URL properties

Hello! I have a bunch of URL properties listed on my user page, I plan on proposing them all soon. Also, you should join WikiProject Websites! -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 17:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for reaching out :) I am mostly interested in properties related to software, which is why I joined WikiProject Informatics. I am a bit wary of joining WikiProject Websites because I don't want to be notified about External Identifier proposals (even though I do generally support them ... I just don't want to get pinged about them). --Push-f (talk) 17:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh alright, that's ok! I like the proposals you've been putting out. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 17:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :) --Push-f (talk) 17:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Property creation strategy

I was unable to continue the intensive discussion we had about sends/receives due to other tasks (outside Wikidata) requiring my attention, and when I eventually got back to the thread today, I just found out that you had withdrawn your proposal.

Anyway, that does not mean "end of discussion" to me, but I remain interested in the protocol description idea, and I can perhaps also contribute to a discussion involving deprecating the property of (P642). I happen to be in favor of that deprecation and have contributed somewhat towards achieving that, but I would be interested in learning about your objections. I would strongly advise against creating an RFC for that purpose, as the guidelines say "that should be done after a long discussion via the other channels". There has been discussion about it, I wasn't involved in that discussion but only learned about it back in January this year, and I don't know whether you have been part of it. If you did, please refer me to those threads so that I can get an idea of your position without unnecessarily taking up your time.

You are also welcome to state your opinion to me and let me give you my feedback, so that you may find out whether the reasoning behind deprecating of (P642) has any weak points or unresolved issues that you could address. I make this offer to you because I believe many other editors will dismiss your position entirely if it becomes apparent that you haven't considered the arguments already made over that past few years and you still want to change the direction of the work they are doing.

I would also be interested in cooperating with you on a number of issues related to Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics, where I'm a bit disappointed about the WikiProject members not working as a team but rather as a loose group of solo editors, and I sometimes find it difficult to obtain constructive feedback on ideas that I have. SM5POR (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Ah interesting that an RFC should only be done after lengthy discussions ... that's certainly not the case in other projects where RFCs can just as well be done to spark discussions.

I have not been part of the of (P642) discussions. But what I recently realized was that it does not make sense to create dozens of properties like:

• has use sending of
• has use receiving of
• has use creating of
• has use editing of
• has use deletion of
• has use moving of
• etc.

When you can just as well use has use (P366) $relevantItem qualified with of (P642).

I am happy to give you feedback on your "informatics in Wikidata"-related ideas :)

--Push-f (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Each community has its particular conventions, and even if both of us are familiar with other conventions practiced elsewhere, we'd better stick to whatever the current community has already agreed upon...

We could get into a lengthy discussion about of (P642), but if you are willing to put that one on hold for a while, I'd like to focus on your proposal "refers to" which partly relates to the same problem as of (P642), the multilingual aspect of Wikidata. I have been planning to bring this topic up for a long time, and your proposal makes it so much more urgent. I hope you will participate in that discussion to help me illustrate the need to move certain statements to the lexeme database (I will be posting a comment shortly).

I have made some notes on informatics-related issues on User:SM5POR/Informatics; feel free to comment on them on some talk page of mine if you find them interesting or problematic in some way. SM5POR (talk) 18:23, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I agree, it makes sense to follow established conventions. Thanks for making me aware of them :)

I am happy to put the of (P642) discussion on hold. I'm looking forward to your thoughts on "refers to".

Note that I'm quite unfamiliar with Lexemes, see also my question Wikidata talk:Lexicographical data#How to search for lexemes?. --Push-f (talk)

Regarding our discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Informatics (which I find a lot easier to participate in than the constrained property proposal discussions), I realize that creating a sub-page wasn't as straightforward as I may have suggested to you.

I remembered that I had created a sub-page Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics/Data as an umbrella page to cover anything involving digital but non-executable codes already two years ago. At first, I had only considered data types and their mapping to real-world information objects, but now that you brought up the input/output properties, I figured they should get a section there too.

So, I restructured the page, added a few sections including one called "Data transfer" (to deal with any data movements from a source to a destination), and moved the existing notes I had compiled two years ago down to a new Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics/Data/Representation sub-page.

Looking at Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics/Software I conclude that I still have a long way to go before the Data page is equally well integrated. But I'm sticking to its contents for the time being, not its form.

So, could you please take a look at Wikidata:WikiProject Informatics/Data#Transfer and let me know if we agree on this conceptual layout? In particular, since I picked "transfer" as the union of the directional input and output concepts, we shouldn't have to separate them until the non-directional issues have been addressed.

Instead, I have made a distinction between different kinds of data transfers as being either symmetric or asymmetric, depending on the ways those transfers are effectuated, which I try to explain in that section. I also list properties that are relevant in the different transfer modes and methods. Do you share this view of mine, or do you want to split transfer using some other kind of divider first, such as hardware/software, digital/analog or user/program (I'm tempted to design a four-dimensional table to properly illustrate these things)?

If we agree, then I plan to continue establishing a page also for the Transfer section, and move the subsections to it, with the aim of eventually using the Transfer page for the input/output modelling. This should provide you with a page focused on this subtopic, to which you can invite anybody you think may be interested in these issues for discussions on the corresponding talk page. SM5POR (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Do you have social media?

I'd love to chat with you about modelling Wikibase somewhere other than Wikidata like Discord or Telegram. Chatting on-wiki takes too long. Do you have either of those? Lectrician1 (talk) 20:35, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for reaching out :) I am happy to chat on Matrix (Q22906785), I sent you my address via Special:EmailUser. --Push-f (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Handling proposals for P642

I see two new property proposals from you today on Wikidata:WikiProject Data Quality/Issues/P642, after you withdrew two yesterday. I think at least one of the new proposals is unnecessary; I haven't had a chance to look closely at the other. But I wonder if, in the future, you might suggest new properties first on Wikidata:WikiProject Data Quality/Issues/P642, so the details can be hammered out by people familiar with the P642 replacement effort before the proposal goes to a wider audience, as we've done so far. In particular, for potential qualifiers, it's important to be explicit about which main properties, main statement values, and qualifier values the qualifier is meant to be used with, in order to be sure the new property doesn't replicate the scope and overlap issues of P642. Queries can then tell us how many statements we're talking about. The scope, in turn, helps stabilize the property name and description, so when the formal proposal is made, it is much easier for others to assess, and much more likely to succeed. Sound ok? Swpb (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes that makes sense, I'll do that. I agree with your point that "is a change of" is unnecessary and just withdrew it accordingly. I created the object identifies proposal like three weeks ago but only recently figured out that it can also be used to replace a use case of of (P642). --Push-f (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Re: Wikidata:Property proposal/source of action & destination of action

I just remembered that three years ago, I proposed another generic "destination" property: Wikidata:Property proposal/recipient. You can see how that went. But there is definitely still a big gap here - simply stating where something comes from or goes to is not possible on Wikidata, outside of a few domain-specific properties (addressee (P1817), destination point (P1444), towards (P5051), target (P533)). If it's alright with you, I'd like to add my examples 1 and 5 from my old proposal to yours, to show use cases outside of software. This would also expand the scope to allow use as a main statement. Or alternately, you could explicitly limit the scope of your proposal to software, and I'd be happy to work with you on another generic to/from proposal. I honestly don't know which path would stand a better chance of success. Since you're the author of the active proposal, I'll follow your lead. Cheers, Swpb (talk) 15:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

@Swpb: Hi, thanks for reaching out :) Sorry for taking so long to reply. Yes example 1 seems to fit well, however I am not so sure about qualifying purchasing (Q1369832) with "destination of action" because a purchase is an exchange that is both parties give something and receive something, so I think source and destination are ambiguous when talking about purchases. --Push-f (talk) 16:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Good point - I reworded that example to get rid of the ambiguity. Swpb (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Entity types vs data types

Hi,

Isn't Wikibase item datatype (Q115470359) the same as Wikibase item (Q29934200). If not, we should make the distinction clearer (and at the very least, link them to each other with different from (P1889)).

Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, no they're not the same. The former is an entity type while the latter is a data type used to link entities of that type. Yes I agree that having both items labeled the same is very confusing ... which is why I initially labeled the latter "Wikibase item datatype" but I see that this has been reverted by @Nikki:. --Push-f (talk) 13:58, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

I just saw that @Lectrician1: changed it back ... I'd have to agree that this is the right call because otherwise too many people will be confused ... which is especially problematic because only one of them is meant to be used with item of property constraint (P2305). --Push-f (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Butting in: Would something like Wikibase item datatype (Q115470359)manifestation of (P1557)Wikibase item (Q29934200) be valid? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 05:05, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

No: The Wikibase item (Q29934200) is really just a Q identifier (a positive integer). A Wikibase item datatype (Q115470359) is clearly not a manifestation of an integer. --Push-f (talk) 05:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

What's the difference between Wikibase item (Q29934200) and Wikibase item identifier (Q111513391) then? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 06:04, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Very good question! I think there are actually three concepts here:

• Wikibase item identifier (Q111513391): Every item has such an identifier (which is just a number).
• Wikibase Q identifier (Q115642124): Which is just the notation/display convention to prefix a 'Q' to the former.
• Wikibase item (Q29934200): Properties of that datatype must have a Wikibase item identifier (Q111513391) as their value.

I think it would be best if we would express Wikibase item (Q29934200)has valueWikibase item identifier (Q111513391) directly in Wikidata to clarify the situation and have just proposed such a has value property :)

--Push-f (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

"Problematic properties"

I have my own User:Push-f/Problematic properties page too! It's Wikidata:WikiProject Properties :P Lectrician1 (talk) 04:23, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Automated report of empty item: Q115685617

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner, Dexbot (talk) 17:43, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Call for participation in a task-based online experiment

Dear Push-f,

I hope you are doing well,

I am Kholoud, a researcher at King's College London, and I am working on a project as part of my PhD research, in which I have developed a personalised recommender model that suggests Wikidata items for the editors based on their past edits.

I am inviting you to a task-based study that will ask you to provide your judgments about the relevance of the items suggested by our model based on your previous edits. Participation is completely voluntary, and your cooperation will enable us to evaluate the accuracy of the recommender system in suggesting relevant items to you. We will analyse the results anonymised, and they will be published to a research venue. The study should take no more than 15 minutes. If you agree to participate in this study, please either contact me at kholoud.alghamdi@kcl.ac.uk or use this form https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSees9WzFXR0Vl3mHLkZCaByeFHRrBy51kBca53euq9nt3XWog/viewform?usp=sf_link

Then, I will contact you with the link to start the study.

For more information about the study, please read this post: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Kholoudsaa In case you have further questions or require more information, don't hesitate to contact me through my mentioned email.

Thank you for considering taking part in this research.

Regards Kholoudsaa (talk) 00:12, 14 February 2023 (UTC)