Wikidata:Property proposal/has fruit
has fruit edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
Withdrawn
| Description | the fruit of the plant |
|---|---|
| Represents | fruit (Q1364) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | plants |
| Example | Rubus subg. Rubus (Q13180) → blackberry (Q19842373) |
- Motivation
In https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/type_of_fruit_Q28149961 there the desire for having a property to store the type of a fruit. It became apparent that we currently don't have a way to specifically say that blackberry (Q19842373) is the fruit of Rubus subg. Rubus (Q13180). Given that there's a lot of information we could reasonable store about the fruit like the average weight, the image or the subclass it's makes sense to store that information in the item of the fruit. ChristianKl (talk) 13:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
- What about natural product of taxon (P1582)? --Pasleim (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's used for more than just fruits and thus doesn't allow automatic querying of the fruits. Given that very many plants have fruits I think it's worthwhile to have a specialized property instead of trying to solve it with a qualifier for natural product of taxon (P1582). It's also not clear that all fruits are "products". ChristianKl (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- For querying just add the condition that the entities should be subclasses of fruit (Q1364) (example query). --Pasleim (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Yes, this is so. In this respect the property is superfluous. - Brya (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- I think this is sufficient. --Succu (talk) 14:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- For querying just add the condition that the entities should be subclasses of fruit (Q1364) (example query). --Pasleim (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- It's used for more than just fruits and thus doesn't allow automatic querying of the fruits. Given that very many plants have fruits I think it's worthwhile to have a specialized property instead of trying to solve it with a qualifier for natural product of taxon (P1582). It's also not clear that all fruits are "products". ChristianKl (talk) 13:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Question Is this proprty intended to provide the common names of a fruit like in this list? --Succu (talk) 15:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Having the information about names like this is one way this property is valuble but I don't think it's the only one. ChristianKl (talk) 15:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Comment It seems to me that the vast majority of fruits are not notable, and would not have an item of their own, so this would have very limited use. - Brya (talk) 18:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- Our criteria for notability under (2) is that it's a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity where there are serious public sources that describe an item. It's my understanding that most species of plants get described by biologists in a way that thhere serious public information about traits of the fruit. Do you think that isn't true and there are fruits of plants over which there's no published information at all?
- If I find academic sources that say that the fruit is a compound drupe (Q163233) than I have described the clearly identifiable identity with serious public sources. ChristianKl (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
- That is only so in a limited sense. It should be easy enough to find a book devoted to tomatoes or to apples, so these are clearly notable. But the average fruit will get a line in a description of the taxon. To me that is not notability. By the way, there are plenty of flowers that have books devoted to them. - Brya (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- The key question is whether the information we use in Wikidata to describe a item can be source from serious and public sources. That's what (2) is about. It doesn't really matter if there's only a little information available as long as the information we have in the item corresponds to the available and trustworthy information. As far as the flower goes it's an anatomical feature. I would model it the same we as human leg (Q6027402)'s relationship to human (Q5). ChristianKl (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- That is only so in a limited sense. It should be easy enough to find a book devoted to tomatoes or to apples, so these are clearly notable. But the average fruit will get a line in a description of the taxon. To me that is not notability. By the way, there are plenty of flowers that have books devoted to them. - Brya (talk) 05:05, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- You will note that we do not have an item for the leg of every animal (only for humans), although the legs of most animals can be described from serious and public sources. -Brya (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- We don't have an item for every leg currently but we currently don't want to store any information about the legs. If we take the weight of the brain of a giraffe that's well stored in giraffe brain (Q25685967). That's better than having a "weight of the brain" property. If someone made a list with the weight of legs of different species the way to store that information would be to create new items. ChristianKl (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- It is possible to make items for each of the brains of all the animals in the world (like giraffe brain (Q25685967)), but I think that would be weird, unless it is possible to put some dozen properties in such an item. It would make more sense to have items for all the well-known mushrooms, that is, apart from the items for species of fungi. - Brya (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Our notability criteria don't use a minimum amount of statements that can be made. In computer programming convention wisdom holds that a single function should be as short as possible. System generally get designed with principles like "seperation of concern" in mind. Managing information this way might feel weird if you are used to manage information the way it's managed books or in Wikipedia articles but it's the more appropriate way for managing a linked data system. ChristianKl (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Your coding analogy is a little bit flawed. Ontology design follows his own rules. KISS (Q131560) is something they have in common. Maybe some day we have a manual of style how to do it at Wikidata. As long as you don't give a better definition of this property:
Oppose. --Succu (talk) 21:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC) - Yes, we can and should separate brain of a giraffe from a giraffe in the long run.
- But is it meaningful to separate them blindly, until we have any other details? We would have many items in the search results and few of them would be linked to anything other than parent animal.
- There are many species with brain, but so little of them were studied or used in culinary.
- It makes sense to create new items when reading fresh papers on brains or culinary book or when linking to educational films about particular brain type IMO. d1g (talk) 05:17, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Your coding analogy is a little bit flawed. Ontology design follows his own rules. KISS (Q131560) is something they have in common. Maybe some day we have a manual of style how to do it at Wikidata. As long as you don't give a better definition of this property:
- Our notability criteria don't use a minimum amount of statements that can be made. In computer programming convention wisdom holds that a single function should be as short as possible. System generally get designed with principles like "seperation of concern" in mind. Managing information this way might feel weird if you are used to manage information the way it's managed books or in Wikipedia articles but it's the more appropriate way for managing a linked data system. ChristianKl (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose Who knows what will happen in the long term? But for the moment, the idea of creating a separate item for the fruit of each of the hundreds of thousands of plants is counterproductive. - Brya (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
- Given that the proposal has no support and we now have has fruit type (P4000), I withdraw it. ChristianKl (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)