Wikidata:Property proposal/delimit

has boundary edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

Done: has boundary (P4777) (Talk and documentation)

Description	the element that's on the two dimensional border that surrounds the subject; the limit of an entity
Data type	Item
Domain	geographic location (Q2221906)
Example	Old City of Jerusalem (Q213274) → Walls of Jerusalem (Q2918723) Carança valley (Q28380499) → Pic de la Fossa del Gegant (Q3382408)

Motivation

This property could say that a mount, a mountain pass... is on the limit of a valley. For example,

⟨ Pic de la Fossa del Gegant (Q3382408)  

 ⟩ located in/on physical feature (P706) ⟨ Carança valley (Q28380499)  

 ⟩

is not satisfying (is the mountain part of the valley?) nor precise enough. You may want to know that an object lies just on the border of the valley, not in the middle. If many items had this property, a simple query on wikidata could create an approximate map of the shape of valley. El Caro (talk) 14:40, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support Me semble être une bonne idée. Faudrait peut être aller dans le sens inverse? soit Trois-Rivières (Q44012) --> St. Lawrence River (Q134750) Il me semble que ¸a va éviter de surcharger les rivière et les lacs. --Fralambert (talk)
Support. Thryduulf (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to be a pretty basic property and therefore it's worth to spend some effort to get it right. What the prior art of how this relationship is called and described in other ontologies? ChristianKl (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- so these are items on the edge between surfaces, while connects with (P2789) is the connection between surfaces? --Hannolans (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How would this relate to items like Canada–United States border (Q119515), and statements pointing to it? --Yair rand (talk) 02:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El Caro, Fralambert, Thryduulf, ChristianKl, Hannolans, Yair rand: I have just removed the 'ready' tag. I am OK for this to progress but we are still not there. I personally believe this should be the other way around. And then that maybe terminus (P559) should have its scope widened to accept non-linear features. Thierry Caro (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is far from ready. "delimits/marks out" seem like two names. Having both of them together is bad. Additionally, there are likely other ontologies that have this relationship and it's benefitial to call the same thing by the same name. This however means that someone actually has to do the research and look at prior art. Before that happens I oppose creating this property. ChristianKl (✉) 22:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on opendata.stackexchange for input about prior art. ChristianKl (✉) 15:53, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@El Caro, Fralambert, Thryduulf, Thierry Caro, Hannolans, Yair rand: Given the comment on the linked question, I think the existing http://geovocab.org/geometry#boundary is the nearest, so I would prefer that as name for this property. I would like to make the 2D aspect of the notion of this property clear in the description but I don't know if the wording I chose is ideal. ChristianKl (✉) 20:10, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From ISO 19107:2003(en):

4.4

boundary

set that represents the limit of an entity

4.44

geometric boundary

boundary represented by a set of geometric primitives of smaller geometric dimension that limits the extent of a geometric object

I think this supports us in using "boundary". I think a general property is okay and it doesn't have to be "geometric boundary". ChristianKl (✉) 22:13, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is the area, the boundary and what's on the boundary. This new property wants to link the first one to the two others but maybe, I don't know, it should be connected to the boundary only and have what's on the boundary linked to the boundary too by a more usual location property? I don't know, I'm just suggesting some way. Thierry Caro (talk) 02:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reversed the examples as we seem to be (from label and description) having this property point from the bounded object to its boundary, rather than the reverse? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I made the direction of the relationship more clear by calling it "has boundary". If peole prefer the other direction we can also go for "boundary of". ChristianKl (✉) 16:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal was for "is on the boundary of". "Has boundary" cannot match the examples. --El Caro (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What wrong with Old City of Jerusalem (Q213274) "has boundary" Walls of Jerusalem (Q2918723)? ChristianKl (✉) 23:27, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support It seems very useful. --Okkn (talk) 17:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Okkn, ArthurPSmith, Thierry Caro, El Caro, Hannolans:@Fralambert, Thryduulf: Done Created as has boundary (P4777). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:32, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]