Wikidata:Property proposal/relative count

relative count edit

relative count edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Not done
Description(qualifier) relative count (nominal) of someting
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Example 1iron(II) oxide (Q196680) contains chemical element iron (Q677) → 1, oxygen (Q629) → 1
Example 2dumortierite (Q677619) contains chemical element aluminium (Q663) → 7, boron (Q618) → 1, silicon (Q670) → 3, oxygen (Q629) → 18
Example 3See Wikidata:Property proposal/contains chemical element for other examples

emperical relative count edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Not done
Description(qualifier) relative count (emperical) of someting
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Example 1iron(II) oxide (Q196680) contains chemical element oxygen (Q629) → 0.84-0.95
Example 2dumortierite (Q677619) contains chemical element aluminium (Q663) → 6.5-7
Example 3MISSING

Motivation edit

quantity (P1114) not usable as 1. it is integer only 2. for non-molecular compound, this number is actually a proportion, not a count. GZWDer (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

  Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry

  •   Comment I don't see a fundamental difference between your two proposals here, it should be just a single property, with Quantity value. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Another reason to have just one is that empirical values are not strictly speaking for the compound or substance, but whatever you had in your sample (which also included impurities). Also for simple organic compounds, the integers are in experimental conditions also not integers. We round them for practical means to match our idea of chemical graphs better. I'm more in favor of having one with rational number values. Where they can simply be 1.0. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 05:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Not done no support to create the properties --DannyS712 (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]