# Wikidata:Property proposal/defined in terms of

### other items in defining formulaEdit

You have not transcluded your proposal on Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science yet. Please do it.

#### MotivationEdit

In Wikidata, there is an existing paradigm to model the defining formula of a particular mathematical or scientific concept, along with ways to model quantities that are used to calculate/evaluate the formula. In many cases, however, the defining formula is not something that *can* be calculated. It's just a definition that gives a relation. In these cases, it doesn't make sense to use calculated from (P4934), thus we propose an analaogous property "defined in terms of."

To expand on an example given above, consider Gauss's law for magnetism (Q1195250). We have **Gauss's law for magnetism (Q1195250)** defining formula (P2534) . Clearly, Gauss's law isn't "calculated from" the magnetic field , it merely gives a relation between the magnetic and electric fields, so P4934 is not approriate. The proposed property would be thus be used as follows

defined in terms of |
| ||||||||||||

add value |

defined in terms of |
| ||||||||||||

add value |

The-erinaceous-one (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

#### DiscussionEdit

Notified participants of WikiProject Mathematics Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

**Comment** The proposed property will be applicable to fields outside of mathematics, so I welcome suggestions particullarly with regards to the domain and allowed values. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

**Comment** Could the scope of calculated from (P4934) be generalized to "other terms mentioned in defining formula"? That's how I have understood it so far, say for magnetic flux density (Q30204) where the to-be-defined item does not appear simply on the left-hand-side and the formula can't be solved for it. How *exactly* would we choose between P4934 and the property proposed here? Toni 001 (talk) 08:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

- @Toni 001: Modifying calculated from (P4934) might be a good alternative to creating a new property, especially since, as you note, the distinction between calculated from (P4934) and the proposed property would be fuzzy. One concern with going that route is that calculated from (P4934) might currently be used in cases where the defining formula is not given. Also, changing the label and description could be confusing for a lot of editors and would require updating the labels and discriptions in all the languages. But those are all switching costs and would be outweighed by the long term benefits of better-designed properties.
- If we do modify calculated from (P4934), I suggest we use "other items in defining formula." @Okkn: as the creator of proposal for calculated from (P4934), perhaps you would like to weigh in on this too. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 17:37, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- I can agree with generalizing P4934. I don't think there will be any confusion. --Okkn (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- I added a comment to the property talk page. I do
**Support**this generalization. Toni 001 (talk) 09:13, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

- I added a comment to the property talk page. I do
- Sounds good indeed. Feel free to edit label/description of P4934 to make sure it's understood by both mathematicians and other contributors. --- Jura 09:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
- Great, I've modified the label and description of P4934 and have withdrawn this proposal. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

- I can agree with generalizing P4934. I don't think there will be any confusion. --Okkn (talk) 06:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)