Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/key strength

key strengthEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

DescriptionKey strength of an item that is provable by reference data.
Representsbase material (Q214609) > mechanical property of materials (Q5725005) and ...
Data typeItem
Template parameterThis proprety request is part of the project of creating an infobox for materials
Domainbase material (Q214609) and ... > comparing should be a mandatory qualifier (to be created)
Allowed valuesOne or several items.
Example 1Q48769471 → key strength → Corrosion resistance (Qxxx) / Qualifier : Comparing → stainless steel (Q172587)
Example 2martensitic stainless steel (Q4704771) → key strength → hardness (Q3236003) / Qualifier : Comparing → stainless steel (Q172587)
Example 3nylon 6-6 (Q7071155) → key strength → ultimate tensile strength (Q76005) / Qualifier : Comparing → polymer (Q81163)
Planned useCreating an infobox for materials


Having a summary of key strengths and weakness of materials is very useful to quickly narrow the field of research before doing extensive research in numeric properties.


  •   Question, this property seems a bit subjective; isn't it enough to use sparql query to find materials that have hardness (Q3236003) greather than X and ultimate tensile strength (Q76005) greather than Y (and another 10 parameters greater/lower than)? I won't oppose this property — as this is not my field of work, neither in real life nor in WD — but similar 'descriptive' properties proposals were declined in the past, afair. Wostr (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Well, in the specific case if materials it is not subjective because it is supported by numeric data. The "Comparing" qualifier is very important to narrow the field and make it possible to investigate. I agree that using numeric values works well but it is way harder to use. Most engineers try know the strengths and weaknesses of the main materials subclass to narrow them search before going into detailed materials search. For example if you need a very high hardness, food contact, relative corrosion resistance... to make high quality agrobusiness blades that will cut abrasive materials... you will go to Martensitic stainless steels because you have seen that there is all the caracteristics you need here. Then you select hardness > 58 HRC. But you also need to know the corrosion resistance. Most of time there is no values on datasheets (even if it easy to test) and only high corrosion resistant steels make some communication on this point. So that it is very usefull to have a list of high corrosion resistance steels comparing Martensitic stainless steels. PREN will not be usable due to very high differences of Carbon content. You will have sort the list manually having a look on Carbon, Chromium, Molybdenum, Nitrogen and obtention process but it will help to narrow the list.
It could be intesting to add a rule saying that in case of controverse the property has to have a numeric value and to be in the top quarter of the dataset to be validated as a key strength.
Even if this is very usefull for real life material selection, I'm perfectly aware that it is the door open to all sort of controversial uses in other fields and could even create some debates in the material field. There is no controverse on that X30CrMoNV15-1 has a very high corrosion resistance comparing Martensitic stainless steels. There probably a controverse for X46Cr13 because even if it is probably one of the best cost/corrosion resistance/hardness it completly outperformed by very high end Molybdenum + Nitrogen steels. However the proprety shall be accepted narrowing the comparing qualifier to Cr+C only steels.
Using same property applied to the list of the key strengths of a politician could be highly problematic. So that if such a proprety is accepted the rules have to be clear on what items could use it and under what conditions.
I anticipated that such problematic would be raised submiting this. After some hesitations I finally created the proposition rather than deciding by myself what the other members would think.
-- Thibdx (talk) 00:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment If the purpose is to create a property that lists a material's "physical properties" with notable values, I think the label/description of the proposed Wikidata property should make this clear. With the current label/description, some might end up adding it to people, companies, etc. BTW use (P366) might work in some cases.
    --- Jura 05:17, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Use would say for what it is used but we need alos to know why. I think you have a good point saying that it should be more specific. Here are some proposals :
  • Criteria for selecting this material / Criteria for not selecting this material
  • Notable reason for use / Notable reason to avoid using it
  • Often selected for its / Often not selected in reason of its
  • ... (feel free to add) -- Thibdx (talk) 10:24, 26 July 2018 (UTC)