Wikidata

Wikidata:Requests for comment/Software statements

< Wikidata:Requests for comment
An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Software statements" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.

If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you!


THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows. Hi, there are some open questions about the statements for items about software. Please comment!

Questions edit

main type (GND) edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Clear consensus for a piece of software to be termed as a work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment there are two main types often used for software: "work" and "term". Work is used more often at the moment.

What is right?

* Comment - "work" is not a valid main type, therefore "term" is the only acceptable type. FrigidNinja 02:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Operating Systems edit

Unix edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus is to add all (officially) supported operating systems.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with Unix-based/like operating systems. This is also done different in different articles and Wikipedias. The main possibilities I see are:

  • list all supported Unixes (Linux, MacOS X, Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, AIX…)
    • can be very long and unlimited
 Support We should be as specific as possible as long as it's significant. There's no reason to omit significant information. That goes for platforms other than Unix-like as well. Silver hr (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Java edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Java is simply not an operating system, both according to its Wikipedia articles and the below discussion. No comments on listing all operating systems for Java.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
 Oppose per Snaevar. We cannot claim Java is an operating system. However, Java, other frameworks and operating systems are software platforms in a general sense, so that could be a common property perhaps. Silver hr (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • List all operating systems Java is available for.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

.Net edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Windows is a valid operating system, per below and its Wikipedia article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • .Net
 Oppose .Net as a value for "Operating system" because it's not. Silver hr (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Cross-platform edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Insufficient discussion materialized for this - closed as no consensus.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cause written in pure C, or similar

  • own item named 'cross-platform'
  • list "all" OS
 Support ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Free Software vs. Open Source vs FLOSS edit

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is no consensus for any of the proposals.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should free and open source software be tagged with:

I think the votes were to Oppose tagging software with 'license type' (as proposed here), since that could be original research. Tagging with License is a different thing and shouldn't have that problem so I suggest we change this to a 'License' property. Filceolaire (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how this is a decision making fact. It might as well not be original research. Plus there is a lot of proprietary licence for example, often one (or several) by software, so the licence property might be useless in a lot of situation. We could for example have one item by licence, and a set of properties to describe a licence, but it is a lot of work, which could be checked by reading and citing the licence. But choosing which property could be tricky. In my opinion a generic licence type property with a set of well established type is a much more pratical solution. There exists a lot of classification already done, such as freeware, shareware, free software, ... which can be checked out one way or another. TomT0m (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Discussion to all questions edit

Guidelines, and then? edit

I appreciate your effort to this questions (even thought I didn't notice the required long discussion via the other channels before starting an RFC, but what should us bring an answer to the question? We should also think about how to implement this guidelines, that editors follow them (e.g. editor warnings or the possibility to just only use selected values). Or should we use bots which clean up wrong edits according to this guidelines we're talking here? --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, primary this RfC should lead to some guideline, so that we the users beeing active in the area software on Wikidata know how the should act on these. If in future, the guidelines are recognized and proven, they can be enforced by bots. But I wouldn't do this, unless the development of Wikidata is "mostly finished", since some practices me might find useful now may be not so clever once Phase III is there, etc. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Software_statements&oldid=51941725"