Wikidata talk:WikiProject Dog breeds

Dog breed

What this task force has to do first is, to find out, what is a dog breed. Who defines breeds? There is no unified standard all over the world for any breed, which is accepted by everybody. --Anka Friedrich (talk) 19:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

We don't have a standard accepted by everybody, but we have a standard accepted by 84 countries. The FCI were created in 1911 and recreated in 1921 by national kennel clubs (for example, for the Germany, the VDH) to uniformize pedigrees and define the characteristics of a breed.

This is the de facto international standard, with an organization which aims to be an international coordinating body.

North America have very diversified kennel clubs, but the most notable in US seems to be the ARBA. The ARBA follows the FBI standard - for example see http://www.arba.org/australian-cattle-dog.htm. - but add new groups, and races not currently definitively recognized by the FBI, like the Afghan Hound. http://www.arba.org/afghan-hound-breed-standard.htm.

Other minor clubs doesn't maintain and widely publish standards.

--Dereckson (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Properties of a dog breed

On the dog breed wikidata element

According the diversity of organizations, we should so figure how to express a breed is a standard from <kennel club organization> under the group <X>, number <Y>.

Can we reuse some of existing properties for these 3 ones?

On other elements

We should create a property breed to be able to tell an item this is an australian cattle dog, in addition to this is a dog.

I evoked the last property creation with Ash Crow, it suggests as property description “the breed an individual animal belongs to”.

--Dereckson (talk) 12:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Hallo Dereckson,

I do have similar problems with pigeon and poultry breeds. For pigeons I created Property:P303 (--> it is an EE-breed, from the number, you may see, that it is part of a special group.)

But now, I don't know how to go further...

maybe? <specific breed> instance of (P31) dog breed (Q39367) approved by (P790) Federation Cynologique Internationale (Q38603)

But I think it is better to get these properties:

• "breeder organisation (Q227697) with Breed standard (Q579565)" <Federation Cynologique Internationale (Q38603)>
  • would be usable for cats, pigeons, poultry, sheep, pigs, ...
• "breed group" <specific group> approved by (P790) <Federation Cynologique Internationale (Q38603)>
  • would be usable for cats, pigeons, poultry, sheep, pigs, ... as well as non-Breed standard (Q579565)-references
    • Example: <Helmet (Q5709298)> "breed group" <Q13580239> described by source (P1343) <author: Joachim Schütte / ISBN Number>
    • <Helmet (Q5709298)> "breed group" <fancy pigeon (Q5433715)> approved by (P790) < NPA >
    • <Polish Helmet (Q7209915)> "breed group" <tumbler and highflyers (Q7852566)> approved by (P790) < Entente Européenne d’Aviculture et de Cuniculture (Q1344553)>
• "FCI-breed-number" (dogs only)

Open

• How to handle Groenendael (Q38399) that is not a dogbreed per definition, but a variation, a subclass of a dogbreed (dog type (Q38672))?

1. ⟨ Groenendael (Q38399)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Belgian Shepherd (Q37624)    ⟩
   ?
2. something equal to parent taxon (P171) that is good enough for domesticated animal (Q622852) and maybe cultigen (Q1362373)?

Your second question

use

⟨ my individual dog ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ breed of the dog ⟩

– that is, what this item is for ;)

because of

⟨ Australian Cattle Dog ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Dog ⟩

⟨ my individual dog ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ dog ⟩

is true as well. (even if it is not specifically written drown in the item in question)

Maybe mongrel (Q38945) can become difficult... (or use

⟨ father ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ breed of 1.0 ⟩

and

⟨ mother ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ breed of 0.1 ⟩

)

--PigeonIP (talk) 18:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dereckson: We do not need a specific breed property, instance of (P31) is the generic property to class individual animals (and other real world object) into classes, and dog breeds are indeed classes : groups of dogs in the real world. Here is the scheme I proposed (already elsewhere, for example in the biological taxonomy case, where organisms are divided into classes called kingdom, class, clade ..., or more generally taxon. (Also for Pigeon Breeds)

• We have a set of breeds, like the american American Kennel Club breed. Any of this breed, like akita is classified using its main breeding group :
  ⟨ Akita ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ AKC Breed ⟩
  .
• Those breeds are subclasses of <Dog breeds>
  ⟨ AKC Breed ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Dog Breed ⟩
  .
• The individual dogs are classed into a corresponding dog breed :
  ⟨ my dog ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ Akita ⟩
  .
• Optionally, if there is a hierarchy in the dog breeds, something like all german bulls are bulls, then we use subclass of (P279) to reflect that :
  ⟨ german bull dog ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ bull dog ⟩
  , which reads exactly all german bulls are bulls.

In practice, this means that by a query, you can get all the AKC Breeds by querying all items who are instance of (P31) <AKC Breed>, for example. TomT0m ^(talk) 15:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@TomT0m:: we already had the pleasure. I already told you that a breed of one breeder organisation (Q227697) may not be a breed in a second one.

An example (refering to chicken): The Belgian Bantams are one breed within the Poultry Club of Great Britain. Within that organisation Belgian Bearded d'Anvers (Q221018), Belgian Bearded d'Uccle (Q2870224), Barbu de Watermael (Q1796358) and Belgian d'Everberg (Q2302346) are variations of that breed. (see PCGB: True Bantam) Within the American Poultry Association these variations are indeed breeds.(see APA Recognized Breeds and Varieties)

second example (refering to duck): within PCGB and the APA the Swedish blue duck (Q3486523) is a breed. Within the Scandinavian organisations the "Swedish Blue" is a variation/one colour, of the breed "Swedish Duck" including the "Swedish yellow duck" (the scandinavian "Swedish Duck" is accepted with 4 colours). Other organisations do say "Swedish blue duck" is a landrace as well as the "swedish yellow"-one, the 4th colour of the scandinavian "Swedish Duck"-breed. (

⟨ Swedish blue ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ landrace (Q174030)    ⟩

)

What you may understand for "beeing a breed" is done with

⟨ Belgian d'Everberg (Q2302346)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ chicken (Q780)    ⟩

maybe

⟨ Belgian d'Everberg (Q2302346)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Bantam (Q244179)    ⟩

and an individual one is done with

⟨ Sergeant Stubby (Q687727)    ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ dog (Q144)    ⟩

.

Now to be understood?

Because you refered to taxons: see wolf (Q18498), that is one. Domesticated animals (and some plants) are no taxons. In the case of breeds

⟨ special breed ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ domesticated animal (Q622852)    ⟩

(or a better solution like "no Taxon") may be enough, together with a system corresponding to the one developped by the Wikidata:Taxonomy task force#Properties for wild animals and plants. (that is, what I do have in mind for the domesticated)

for using subclasses: within the breeding-organisations there are very different definitions of breed groups, you never get a clear structure there. Within pigeons: the austrian, american and european systems do not match. Within poultry are differen systems, every cat or dog breeding organisation has its own system of categorisation...

and by using one subclass for every breed and breeder organisation (Q227697) there are lot of known issues [1] --PigeonIP (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

@PigeonIP: I don't see your problem. If some breed Br exists for organisation A but not for organisation B, then we will put

⟨ Br ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ organisation A breed ⟩

and no statement about organisation B. If it's an equivalent breed for both A and B organisation, we put both statement. Agreed on that ? TomT0m ^(talk) 20:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Domesticated animals (and some plants) are no taxons This statement makes no sense to me. Biological classification can class every dog into the canis taxon without any problem as dogs and wolfed are all member of a clade (Q713623)    (which humans do not belongs to for example). It's just that breeds do not follow the same standards or definitions, that's why we must put the instance of (P31) statements to the breed item to say who defined this breed exactly. It seems indeed that a breed name is sometimes worthless if not adjoint with the name of the organisation. TomT0m ^(talk) 20:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by

⟨ Swedish blue ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ landrace (Q174030)    ⟩

 ? I don't think this is correct.

⟨  special breed  ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨  domesticated animals ⟩

is definitely incorrect. A breed regroups a class of animals, domesticated animals is also a class of animals, so both have the same objects as instances : animals. But instance of (P31) links element of a set to a set countaining elements of the same kind. It can't link a set of animals to a set of animals. If you want to link <special breed> with instance of (P31), it would be

⟨ special breed ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ breed ⟩

, as the set of all breeds is a set of breeds, and a specific breed is a member of it. TomT0m ^(talk) 21:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• as for taxa: a breed is not a species!
  • while maybe
    ⟨ Belgian d'Everberg (Q2302346)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ Bantam (Q244179)    ⟩
    -->
    ⟨ Bantam (Q244179)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ chicken (Q780)    ⟩
    --> is "gallus gallus domesticus" is correct
  • gallus gallus domesticus is Belgian d'Everberg (Q2302346) is not; but gallus gallus domesticus is chicken (Q780) is correct --> that is, why
    ⟨ Belgian d'Everberg (Q2302346)    ⟩ subclass of (P279) ⟨ chicken (Q780)    ⟩
    for all chicken breeds derived from gallus gallus gallus (there are two duck species and two goose species domesticated ducks/geese are derived from; geese are even mixed)

    @PigeonIP: Sorry but I don't get a word of what you are talking about, and how you contradict me in anything. TomT0m ^(talk)

• If some breed Br exists for organisation A but not for organisation B, then we will put
  ⟨ Br ⟩ instance of (P31) ⟨ organisation A breed ⟩
  and no statement about organisation B. If it's an equivalent breed for both A and B organisation, we put both statement. Agreed on that ? --> NO. in the case of pigeons and poultry: cs.wp, de.wp, pl.wp and even ru.wp do refer to the EE; en.wp does refer to austrian, british and american standards. We don't choose one information over the other. --PigeonIP (talk) 22:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

  ?? In Wikidata we need to be precise : One concept, one item. This has been the principle that guided us since the beginning. If different organisms have different definitions for a breed with identical names, that's two concepts. We need Homonymy pages or something like that in Wikipedias, or mentions that the definition of the organisms. That's NPOV : mentioning and attributing of all point of views. Since we got different standards, we need different items. TomT0m ^(talk) 07:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@TomT0m: Sorry, I hope I do understand you correct: you do propose another item for every standard of a breed? That would make interwikis no longer usable. That is crazy! Do you even have any idea how many breeder organisation (Q227697) are out there? How many breeds? And how many standards? --PigeonIP (talk) 10:31, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Why another item ? An item is enough if the standards are not identical. I don't have an idea of the number, but I doubt this is unmanageable in Wikidata. can you be more specific ? This is standard practices. The interwiki is a more general problem, I imagine that in the breed infobox we can add a link for every almost equivalent breeds of other organisations if they exists, that links to the Wikidata items. There is also the solution to make the associated articles redirections to a more general article about the breeds in different organisation iself. Anyway it's standard practice to create a specific item to be precise in the instance of (P31) statements about the nature of a real world object. Wikidata is a tool to manage datas, we have tools to do automatically a lot of things on a batch of objects. TomT0m ^(talk) 11:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

TomT0m Domesticated animals (and some plants) are no taxons „This statement makes no sense to me.” - I think you did not understood the definition on which the term taxon (Q16521) is based on. BTW: Your templates are not helpfull at all. They make discussion like this unreadable. --Succu (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Succu: Where do this lead us ? TomT0m ^(talk) 20:26, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe to an understanding of yours that breeds are no taxa. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

@Succu: I guess the biological community mostly does not really care about breeds. Breeding organisms are not scientists, and the definition of taxa in Wikidata is group of organisms that biologists agreed to form a group. I don't know much about the breeding organisms criteria, but watching the definitions ( http://www.akc.org/about/glossary.cfm )

Breed

A domestic race of dogs (selected and maintained by man) with a common gene pool and characterized appearance and function.

Breedstandard

A word picture describing how the perfect dog of a breed should look, move, and behave. The breed standard is owned by the parent club, with full use extended to the AKC.

I understand they follow quite different goals and method compared to biological taxonomist, who nowdays rely on the clade (Q713623)    notion. Is a breed a clade ? I guess not as a dog who has a metting criteria mother and father can be out of the breed standards. By cladistic standards, this makes him a member of the breed, by breeding association, it is not. So it seems this kind of breeding standards organisms do not really meet modern taxonomy standards.

I also guess most of these breeds are also not describe in scientific literature, which imply that they fail to meet the criteria that scienfists thinks they form a group. If I read the french Wikipedia article about taxon, it is said in the introduction that the base taxa in species.

Based on all this, I claim it is sane not to mix breeds and taxa. As far as I now no Wikipedia infobox does that anyway. Other nicely asked question relevant to the subject ? TomT0m ^(talk) 07:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

noone wants to mix breeds and taxa, that is the goal here! there are a lot of infoboxes (in smaller wikis) that don't distingish between breeds and taxa. And there are bots, who happily take this "information" to bring it to wikidata. That is why we need some "no taxa" definition here. And there are wikis out there using different "breed"-definitions, different definitions of "breed group" and different definitions for varieties. All this informations should be mapped on wikidata. --PigeonIP (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine, that you understand now. BTW: One of the most wellknown scientists who was interested in pigeon breeding was Charles Darwin (Q1035). Crop plants (e.g. species group (Q7574964) Brassica oleracea (Q146212); see Die Brassica oleracea-Gruppe) are another example that shows how difficult the theme is. Taxoboxes are often wrong or misplaced. --Succu (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@PigeonIP: That simple, if <taxon> is a subclass of <organism class>, and <breed> is a subclass of <organism class> as well, then we need to use the disjoint with property to say

⟨ taxon ⟩ disjoint with Search ⟨ breed ⟩

. This makes all breeds non taxons in the OWL language. <iA> disjoint with <iB> means that no iA instance is a iB instance, and conversely. TomT0m ^(talk) 13:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@PigeonIP: There were lengthly discussions about disjoint with and about Marking non taxon items. --Succu (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@TomT0m: "We do not need a specific breed property, instance of (P31) is the generic property to class individual animals [...] The individual dogs are classed into a corresponding dog breed : < my dog > nature de l'élément (P31) miga < Akita >" > so you mean we have to create each and every single breed twice, one for real world animal and one for fictional ones (like "fictional akita", "fictional welsh corgi", etc.), eg. instead of having Ein (Q17478799) → instance of (P31) = fictional dog (Q15720625) and a breed qualifier (or property), I need to create a "fictional welsh corgi" subclass of "fictional dog" ? (Thanks @Dereckson: for pointing me this conversation) -Ash Crow (talk) 20:13, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ash Crow: This does not seems to be a problem. I would not say I "want" this but I really much doubt there is that much fictional dogs with an identified breed. This imply that no, we do not need to double the number of breed items, one per actually used breed by a fictional dog is more than enough ihmo. Another look at the problem : let say you want to query all Wikidata Akitas. Then, with the one item solution, you have to precise that you want only real dogs, whether or not we create the "breed" property. The advantages of using the generic classification properties on the other hands are clear, no need to ask ourself if we have to create a generic «breed» property or several «x breed», with x ranging other «pigeon, dog, cat» amongst other : instance of (P31)/subclass of (P279) and a good set of rules on how to use them is enough, versus the problem of decidng and rediciding again how to ise dog and pigeon breeds, who in the worst case scenario could have a diiferent set of inconsistent rules, which would be a big mess. In essence, a breed is a set of animals sharing some properties. This is exactly the kind of stuffs the "class" and "instance" concepts are meant to deal with. TomT0m ^(talk) 20:45, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:57, 25 November 2015 (UTC)