Wikidata:Property proposal/surrounds

Not done

Description	something that is physically surrounded by the subject item
Data type	Item
Example	endomysium (Q3395843) → muscle tissue (Q18891564) = myocyte (Q428914) perimysium (Q3543470) → muscle fascicle (Q6321987) fascia (Q936531) → skeletal striated muscle (Q1048687) bony labyrinth (Q262489) → membranous labyrinth (Q6593307) myelin sheath (Q187388) → axon (Q178999) amnion (Q473749) → embryo (Q33196) and amniotic fluid (Q901674) atmosphere of Earth (Q3230) → Earth (Q2) mantle (Q101949) → planetary core (Q742129)

Not done

Description	something that surrounds the subject item
Data type	Item
Example	muscle tissue (Q18891564) = myocyte (Q428914) → endomysium (Q3395843) muscle fascicle (Q6321987) → perimysium (Q3543470) skeletal striated muscle (Q1048687) → fascia (Q936531) membranous labyrinth (Q6593307) → bony labyrinth (Q262489) axon (Q178999) → myelin sheath (Q187388) embryo (Q33196) → amnion (Q473749) and amniotic fluid (Q901674) Earth (Q2) → atmosphere of Earth (Q3230) planetary core (Q742129) → mantle (Q101949)

This property is useful to describe some anatomical relations (see above examples). And it mey be able to use for general uses.

I think it's useful to have a property for this but we should look at other ontologies for prior art and to get a good definition. I'm not sure that it's good to give atmosphere of Earth (Q3230) → Earth (Q2) the same property as myelin sheath (Q187388) → axon (Q178999) given that axon (Q178999) is surrounded in two dimensions while Earth (Q2) is surrounded in three. ChristianKl (talk) 08:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both atmosphere of Earth (Q3230) and myelin sheath (Q187388) have 3D shapes. I don't feel the need of distinction, for the time being. And as far as I know, in prior art, Relations Ontology has only “2D boundary of” and “has 2D boundary” properties. They pay attention to the relationship between 3D objects and 2D bounadry surfaces, but our “surrounds” and “surrounded by” are more flexible to use. In fact, it is not so hard to determine or describe whether an item is a 3D object or a 2D surface by using other properties like instance of (P31) or subclass of (P279). --Okkn (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know I think it would be excessive to have this apply to maps. Like for example, many statues are "surrounded" by parks. Would all monuments in all parks use this? What limits should be on this property? Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that it's possible to use a property doesn't mean that it has to be used in every possible case. I'm however not sure that this property is bad for describing the relationship between a park and a statue. I went into Special:Nearby and looked at the first two relevant items I found were Europa macht Handstand III (Q26690299) and Gorgobrunnen „Medusa“ (Q1468475) aren't linked to the park in which they are located in any way. ChristianKl (talk) 15:51, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bluerasberry, ChristianKl: Especially in the case of parks and monuments, aren't part of (P361)/has part(s) (P527) more suitable? I think applying this property to maps matters little. --Okkn (talk) 17:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel strongly about the issue of marks and monuments. ChristianKl (talk) 11:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support anatomical usage and other usages with ~1K items; but geographical usage should be limited (we have more specific properties) d1g (talk) 21:16, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Lack of support.--Micru (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]