Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/orthogonal to

< Wikidata:Property proposal

orthogonal of edit

   Not done
DescriptionNonoverlapping dimesion of the same class
Representsorthogonality (Q215067)
Data typeItem
Examplelongitudinal axis (Q380410) → pitch axis (Q2050624)
longitudinal axis (Q380410) → yaw axis (Q9288712)
backness (Q24287581) → height (Q24287574)
Motivation

It seems like there should be a property to model the relationship between the vertical axis and the lateral axis. I think `orthogonal of` is a good name because it's a quite general term in mathematics. I also think it makes senes to define it wide enough to model the relationship between the different properties of vowels.

 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristianKl (talk • contribs) at 9 June 2016‎ (UTC).

Discussion
Are you sure? The Swedish Wikipedia seems to [say](https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vinkelr%C3%A4t) that ortogonal is another word for vinkelrät. I would guess that 'ortogonal' is a hypernym of 'vinkelrät'.
The point of math isn't to talk mainly about abstract examples but also to use math to model real world entities. Mathematical vectors are a concept that's useful for modelling many real world problems.ChristianKl (talk) 09:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Vinkelrät" and "Ortogonal" are exchangeable in a simple Cartesian 2D or 3D vector space. But as soon as it becomes more complicated, it looks very strange to talk about "vinkelrät". "Vinkelrät" almost demands that you can use a machinist square (Q1778014), but that is hard when the vector looks like:   -- Innocent bystander (talk) 16:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What you said doesn't conflict with my claim that "Ortogonal" is a hypernym of "Vinkelrät". You can simply translate my proposed property into Swedish by using the word "Ortogonal". It doesn't create any conflicts. I don't see a reason to have an extra property that's focused on geometry when the mathematical term of orthogonalty can also be used for geometry. ChristianKl (talk) 17:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Ortogonal" and "Vinkelrät" are both useful in a small range with 2D/3D-Cartesian vectors. In pure Geometry and pure Abstract Math both cannot be used. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 06:08, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What are cases where "Vinkelrät" can be used but "Ortogonal" can't? ChristianKl (talk) 08:23, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The example above about "position of the tongue" is such an example. There is a narrow range where Mathematics and Geometry overlaps where both can be used, but hardly otherwise. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:50, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In my understanding we have a three dimensional vector to describe a vowel that that has a height, a backness and a rounded dimension. Those three dimensions are independent of each other and thus orthogonal. In this particular case height and backness are also geometrically orthogonal but height and roundedness isn't.
Currently the only way to link roundedness (Q1425556), backness (Q24287581) and height (Q24287574) together would be different from (P1889). I think it would be worthwhile to have a more specific property for it and I think the mathematical term of orthogonality fits it. Do you have another idea of how a property for this purpose could be called? ChristianKl (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, split the proposal into Geometry and Mathematics. Or skip the Mathematics for now. All examples above are within the range of Geometry from my point of view. Also note that my oppose is a weak oppose. We already have properties that works poorly in some languages, it does not corrupt Wikidata completely if we introduce this problem in my main language. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  Support This seems well-defined and useful and makes sense to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:43, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@ArthurPSmith: I think without a real usecase it's kind of hard to know if it's well defined or not.

  Comment @ChristianKl: : mathematically the orthogonality notion is defined in some mathematical spaces like vector spaces. To define this property well we should be able to specify this as well. I can't support the creation while we don't have a more complete plan about this ...  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by TomT0m (talk • contribs) at 4 November 2016‎ (UTC).

  Comment To model real (3D) world we must add only axises (coordinate axis (Q1783819)?): 1) of observer (Q3348297), 2) of cross section (Q845080)/projection (Q13415428). For example, profile (Q4382010). Here we have a object in three-dimensional space (Q34929) (x,y,z) and 1) x-axis (Q26262123) (left/right axis (Q25620513)). If front view (Q1972238) - 1) z-axis (Q26262121). dorsal/ventral axis specification (Q21102697) - 2) y-axis (Q26262125) of cross section (Q845080)/projection (Q13415428) and 1) z-axis (Q26262121) for observer (Q3348297). For turn on the left - orthogonal direction to the left (Q22672535), on the right - orthogonal direction to the right (Q22672531). But before for 3D of course we have x-axis (Q26262123) ⊥ y-axis (Q26262125), y-axis (Q26262125) ⊥ z-axis (Q26262121). For 2D world we have binary opposition (Q2920592) (binarism (Q21651895) - dualism (Q167312)=opposite (Q1498321)=antonym (Q131779), opposite of (P461)): only x-axis (Q26262123)/y-axis (Q26262125) or y-axis (Q26262125),z-axis (Q26262121) or z-axis (Q26262121)/x-axis (Q26262123) --Fractaler (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl, TomT0m, Fractaler, Jura1, Innocent bystander:   Not done - lack of consensus, and stale. It sounds like a more precise set of use cases and examples would help if this is proposed again. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/orthogonal_to&oldid=424911152"