Wikidata:Property proposal/formé en même temps que
formed at the same time as edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | item that appeared at the same time by the same process, or a related process |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | item (for example, fossils (in particular by fossilization by external mold (Q105906455) et fossilization by internal mold (Q105906508) process), twins stars, mountains, |
| Allowed values | Qid, list accepted |
| Example 1 | any fossil by internal mold (Q105888936) with fossil by external mold (Q105888779) when we have both fossils. |
| Example 2 | HD 186302 (Q59121867) with Sun (Q525), with presumably (Q18122778) qualifier |
| Example 3 | External massif (Q3297714) with Vosges Mountains (Q187843), Rhenish Massif (Q313834), Harz (Q4186) Bohemian Massif (Q704453) Armorican Massif (Q1980627) |
| Planned use | I will import during april a collection of fossile with related item (publication, location, author, etc…) and a part of fossils (maybe twenty out of four hundred) need to by linked by this property (there are pair of cast and endocast fossils formed by the same process). |
| Wikidata project | Paleontology, astronomy, geography, geology… |
Motivation edit
Dans le cadre du versement de la première collection de fossiles sur Wikidata à partir des données du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle de Neuchâtel (Natural history museum of Neuchâtel (Q3330885)), je suis en train de travailler sur la description des fossiles dans le projet. Cela s’accompagne de plusieurs modifications et de structuration. Pour mener cela à bien, j’ai besoin de cette propriété qui permettrait d’associer des objets dont l’apparition ou la formation est simultanée. J’envisage d’utiliser ça au moins pour des fossiles en empreinte et contrempreinte, mais aussi pour des fossiles issus du même banc stratigraphique. Comme présenté dans la description, on peut envisager facilement de l’utiliser pour des étoiles issues du même cluster de formation, ou bien des massifs issus de la même formation géologique. Merci pour vos éclairages et votre soutien. Lucas Lévêque (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
As part of the deposit of the first collection of fossils on Wikidata using data from the Neuchâtel Natural History Museum (Natural history museum of Neuchâtel (Q3330885)), I am working on the description of the fossils in the project. This is accompanied by several modifications and structuring. To do this successfully, I need this property which would allow the association of objects that appear or form simultaneously. I plan to use this at least for cast and endocast fossils, but also for fossils from the same stratigraphic bed. As presented in the description, we can easily consider using it for stars from the same formation cluster, or mountain ranges from the same geological formation. Thank you for your insight and your support. Lucas Lévêque (talk) 18:23, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion edit
- comment this just seems hard to define, what exactly means "at the same time"? This may depend on the time scale. On a geological time scale, many things happen "at the same time". Would this simply apply for items where a clear ordering relation cannot be established, eg either it is unknown (lack of current knowledge) or cases where it truly cannot be specified if "A is before B" or "B is before A" since they happen truly simultaneously? Secondly, if your idea is only to link things created by the same process, wouldnt it be easier to create a Q-item of the process and then link to both, eg "generation of solar system" and link HD 186302 (Q59121867) and Sun (Q525) to that process to achieve the same result without making this too complex? --Hannes Röst (talk) 21:41, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Hannes Röst, thank you for the comment. Indeed it is not easy to define precisely "at the same time". I think we can get around the question by putting a process constraint, and it is the latter that will give the time scale. I think we can use it for the two cases you give and that an information quality qualifier will indicate when there is a « lack of current knowledge ». Besides, it is good to specify that two objects were formed simultaneously, and in my case by two separate processes that took place strictly at the same time. the indication of the transformation process as a qualifier of the other related object will help clarify the information, in my opinion. Here is the example I am faced with: they are two fossils, fossilized at the same time, by two related but not identical processes (fossilization by external mold (Q105906455) and fossilization by internal mold (Q105906508)). They are inseparable for these fossils but correspond to an unique temporality, the fossilization took place absolutely at the same time, we cannot say that one process precedes the other. However, these two fossils are associated in the database that I am work with, they are the counterpart of the other with a reverse process but without a cause and effect relationship. Hence my proposal for a simultaneity property for at least this kind of item. (Sorry for my translation maybe approximate.) Lucas Lévêque (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'd rather use the other time properties to find these programmatically in a SPARQL-query than trying to match everything that has formed at the same time. Ainali (talk)
- Ainali For some item with lots of Properties and high quality of description, I think it’s possible (like sun’s twins). But for 2 fossils, formed by a similar process at the same time how did you link these two part ? Lucas Lévêque (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well obviously we can't query well if the data is missing. But the solution is not adding more properties, but to add the data that is missing for the properties we have already. Ainali (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if we can’t put data because we haven’t the property, how did we do ? Lucas Lévêque (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- We do have start time (P580), end time (P582), temporal range start (P523) and temporal range end (P524) so there are plenty of properties to both store values in and query for already. This would only be redundant to what these can tell us. Ainali (talk) 10:22, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well, if we can’t put data because we haven’t the property, how did we do ? Lucas Lévêque (talk) 15:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
- Well obviously we can't query well if the data is missing. But the solution is not adding more properties, but to add the data that is missing for the properties we have already. Ainali (talk) 19:38, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- Ainali For some item with lots of Properties and high quality of description, I think it’s possible (like sun’s twins). But for 2 fossils, formed by a similar process at the same time how did you link these two part ? Lucas Lévêque (talk) 09:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
- I'd rather use the other time properties to find these programmatically in a SPARQL-query than trying to match everything that has formed at the same time. Ainali (talk)
- Hello Hannes Röst, thank you for the comment. Indeed it is not easy to define precisely "at the same time". I think we can get around the question by putting a process constraint, and it is the latter that will give the time scale. I think we can use it for the two cases you give and that an information quality qualifier will indicate when there is a « lack of current knowledge ». Besides, it is good to specify that two objects were formed simultaneously, and in my case by two separate processes that took place strictly at the same time. the indication of the transformation process as a qualifier of the other related object will help clarify the information, in my opinion. Here is the example I am faced with: they are two fossils, fossilized at the same time, by two related but not identical processes (fossilization by external mold (Q105906455) and fossilization by internal mold (Q105906508)). They are inseparable for these fossils but correspond to an unique temporality, the fossilization took place absolutely at the same time, we cannot say that one process precedes the other. However, these two fossils are associated in the database that I am work with, they are the counterpart of the other with a reverse process but without a cause and effect relationship. Hence my proposal for a simultaneity property for at least this kind of item. (Sorry for my translation maybe approximate.) Lucas Lévêque (talk) 14:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Support, an important property for processes.--Arbnos (talk) 23:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Leaning oppose Too generalist: too many items may be concerned for a property that will not be generic and excess can occur to combine a bit of everything. —Eihel (talk) 11:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)- Oppose Hmm, but the property proposed name is actually a query. Query: Show me fossils (or a set of them based on criteria) that were formed at the same time. You would then get SPARQL query results. So it seems having the right data in the right date/time properties seems like the real need here. However, I have no idea if we already have the right properties you might be looking for to fill with data, in order to ask those kinds of queries. I'd move that discussion and add a new topic section for discussion of that here: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Geology --Thadguidry (talk) 20:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Not done - no consensus for the proposal --DannyS712 (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
