Property talk:P291 - Revision history

Podehaye: /* comments related to querying/graphing and the ultimate merging into a common model */

2020-02-11T22:42:18Z

comments related to querying/graphing and the ultimate merging into a common model

Podehaye: /* discussion about {{Q|1117}} */

2020-02-11T22:36:47Z

discussion about {{Q|1117}}

Alexbfree at 17:05, 11 February 2020

2020-02-11T17:05:54Z

Alexbfree: /* discussion about {{Q|1117}} */

2020-02-11T17:01:25Z

discussion about {{Q|1117}}

Alexbfree at 17:00, 11 February 2020

2020-02-11T17:00:53Z

Alexbfree at 17:00, 11 February 2020

2020-02-11T17:00:29Z

Alexbfree at 17:00, 11 February 2020

2020-02-11T17:00:02Z

Alexbfree at 16:55, 11 February 2020

2020-02-11T16:55:53Z

Alexbfree at 16:54, 11 February 2020

2020-02-11T16:54:11Z

Podehaye at 16:24, 11 February 2020

2020-02-11T16:24:27Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 22:42, 11 February 2020
Line 24:		Line 24:

	{{reply_to\|Podehaye}} I was just thinking about this some more. The ability to list and graph usages/related concepts is very powerful. I think something we could do soon is generate a query that lists all the objects of {{P\|10}} snaks on ALL instances of {{Q\|96}}. If possible gathering both the direct object text of those {{P\|10}} properties - but also the {{P\|27}} object text of all {{P\|10}} properties as well. With this list, once Merge is fixed (maybe it already is?) we should be able to do some serious merging of related concepts (though we should be careful to add {{P\|27}} qualifiers where they are absent so that no generated GDPR letter gets its output changed by the merging... [[User:Alexbfree\|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree\|talk]]) 17:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)		{{reply_to\|Podehaye}} I was just thinking about this some more. The ability to list and graph usages/related concepts is very powerful. I think something we could do soon is generate a query that lists all the objects of {{P\|10}} snaks on ALL instances of {{Q\|96}}. If possible gathering both the direct object text of those {{P\|10}} properties - but also the {{P\|27}} object text of all {{P\|10}} properties as well. With this list, once Merge is fixed (maybe it already is?) we should be able to do some serious merging of related concepts (though we should be careful to add {{P\|27}} qualifiers where they are absent so that no generated GDPR letter gets its output changed by the merging... [[User:Alexbfree\|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree\|talk]]) 17:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	: {{reply_to\|Alexbfree}} Yes. To generalize what you just said: we start with a class C, look at a property P we expect instances of C to have present, and look at the values V. Then we start taxonomizing the V. I think this pattern will be present quite a few times, and most useful indeed for this use case of
		+
		+	?item {{P\|3}} {{Q\|96}};
		+	{{P\|10}} ?value.
		+	?value {{P\|3}} ?unknown.

@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 :: {{reply_to|Podehaye}} erm, well, it is showing the source of this specific {{P|10}}-snak, so I think that makes it a qualifier, right? A property, that is being used as a qualifier? I think some properties (such as {{Q|1048}}) could apply either as a qualifier on a snak or as a property on an Item - whereas some properties like {{Q|1117}} would apply typically only as a qualifier upon a snak. Right? If I am using concepts incorrectly, please let me know - it's certainly possible I have the wrong mental model! [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 {{reply_to|Podehaye}} Let me check I got this right:
@@ Line 17: / Line 19: @@
 * A qualifier would be a snak applied to a 'property snak'. A snak of an Item property.
 Is this right? [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 == comments related to querying/graphing and the ultimate merging into a common model ==
 {{reply_to|Podehaye}} I was just thinking about this some more. The ability to list and graph usages/related concepts is very powerful. I think something we could do soon is generate a query that lists all the objects of {{P|10}} snaks on ALL instances of {{Q|96}}. If possible gathering both the direct object text of those {{P|10}} properties - but also the {{P|27}} object text of all {{P|10}} properties as well. With this list, once Merge is fixed (maybe it already is?) we should be able to do some serious merging of related concepts (though we should be careful to add {{P|27}} qualifiers where they are absent so that no generated GDPR letter gets its output changed by the merging... [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 17:05, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 * Snak = Property + Value (where value could be an Item, Property, text or something else).
 * A snak directly upon an Item could be considered a property of that Item (a 'property snak', let's say)
-* A qualifier would be a snak applied to a 'property snak'. A property snak of an Item property.
+* A qualifier would be a snak applied to a 'property snak'. A snak of an Item property.
 Is this right? [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 * Snak = Property + Value (where value could be an Item, Property, text or something else).
 * A snak directly upon an Item could be considered a property of that Item (a 'property snak', let's say)
-* A qualifier would be a snak applied to a 'property snak'. A property of an Item property.
+* A qualifier would be a snak applied to a 'property snak'. A property snak of an Item property.
 Is this right? [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 :: {{reply_to|Podehaye}} erm, well, it is showing the source of this specific {{P|10}}-snak, so I think that makes it a qualifier, right? A property, that is being used as a qualifier? I think some properties (such as {{Q|1048}}) could apply either as a qualifier on a snak or as a property on an Item - whereas some properties like {{Q|1117}} would apply typically only as a qualifier upon a snak. Right? If I am using concepts incorrectly, please let me know - it's certainly possible I have the wrong mental model! [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
-:: {{reply_to|Podehaye}} Let me check I got this right:
+{{reply_to|Podehaye}} Let me check I got this right:
 * Snak = Property + Value (where value could be an Item, Property, text or something else).
 * A snak directly upon an Item could be considered a property of that Item (a 'property snak', let's say)
 * A qualifier would be a snak applied to a 'property snak'. A property of an Item property.
 Is this right? [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 8: / Line 8: @@
 == discussion about {{Q|1117}} ==
-one comment though: you use {{Q|1117}} as a qualifier, but I think you mean a property, no? (also on [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]). [[User:Podehaye|Podehaye]] ([[User talk:Podehaye|talk]]) 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
+: {{reply_to|Alexbfree}} one comment though: you use {{Q|1117}} as a qualifier, but I think you mean a property, no? (also on [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]). [[User:Podehaye|Podehaye]] ([[User talk:Podehaye|talk]]) 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 :: {{reply_to|Podehaye}} erm, well, it is showing the source of this specific {{P|10}}-snak, so I think that makes it a qualifier, right? A property, that is being used as a qualifier? I think some properties (such as {{Q|1048}}) could apply either as a qualifier on a snak or as a property on an Item - whereas some properties like {{Q|1117}} would apply typically only as a qualifier upon a snak. Right? If I am using concepts incorrectly, please let me know - it's certainly possible I have the wrong mental model! [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 I would for example add {{P|27}} and {{Q|1117}} as qualifiers typically added under {{P|10}}. Thoughts {{reply_to|Podehaye}} {{reply_to|Hanz0mon}}? -- [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
-: {{reply_to|Alexbfree}} yes, we should seek to extend this technique to have the expressivity you are seeking with the page [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]. one comment though: you use {{Q|1117}} as a qualifier, but I think you mean a property, no? (also on [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]). [[User:Podehaye|Podehaye]] ([[User talk:Podehaye|talk]]) 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
+: {{reply_to|Alexbfree}} yes, we should seek to extend this technique to have the expressivity you are seeking with the page [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]].
-:: {{reply_to|Podehaye}} erm, well, it is showing the source of this specific {{P|10}}-snak, so I think that makes it a qualifier, right? A property, that is being used as a qualifier? I think some properties (such as {{Q|1048}}) could apply either as a qualifier on a snak or as a property on an Item - whereas some properties like {{Q|1117}} would apply typically only as a qualifier upon a snak. Right? If I am using concepts incorrectly, please let me know - it's certainly possible I have the wrong mental model!
+== discussion about {{Q|1117}} ==

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 11 February 2020
Line 6:		Line 6:
	: {{reply_to\|Alexbfree}} yes, we should seek to extend this technique to have the expressivity you are seeking with the page [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]. one comment though: you use {{Q\|1117}} as a qualifier, but I think you mean a property, no? (also on [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]). [[User:Podehaye\|Podehaye]] ([[User talk:Podehaye\|talk]]) 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)		: {{reply_to\|Alexbfree}} yes, we should seek to extend this technique to have the expressivity you are seeking with the page [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]. one comment though: you use {{Q\|1117}} as a qualifier, but I think you mean a property, no? (also on [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]). [[User:Podehaye\|Podehaye]] ([[User talk:Podehaye\|talk]]) 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

−	:: {{reply_to\|Podehaye}} erm, well, it is showing the source of this specific ~~collects~~-snak, so I think that makes it a qualifier, right? A property, that is being used as a qualifier? I think some properties (such as ~~comment~~) could apply either as a qualifier on a snak or as a property on an Item - whereas some properties like ~~source~~ would apply typically only as a qualifier upon a snak. Right? If I am using concepts incorrectly, please let me know - it's certainly possible I have the wrong mental model!	+	:: {{reply_to\|Podehaye}} erm, well, it is showing the source of this specific {{P\|10}}-snak, so I think that makes it a qualifier, right? A property, that is being used as a qualifier? I think some properties (such as {{Q\|1048}}) could apply either as a qualifier on a snak or as a property on an Item - whereas some properties like {{Q\|1117}} would apply typically only as a qualifier upon a snak. Right? If I am using concepts incorrectly, please let me know - it's certainly possible I have the wrong mental model!

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:54, 11 February 2020
Line 5:		Line 5:

	: {{reply_to\|Alexbfree}} yes, we should seek to extend this technique to have the expressivity you are seeking with the page [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]. one comment though: you use {{Q\|1117}} as a qualifier, but I think you mean a property, no? (also on [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]). [[User:Podehaye\|Podehaye]] ([[User talk:Podehaye\|talk]]) 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)		: {{reply_to\|Alexbfree}} yes, we should seek to extend this technique to have the expressivity you are seeking with the page [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]. one comment though: you use {{Q\|1117}} as a qualifier, but I think you mean a property, no? (also on [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]). [[User:Podehaye\|Podehaye]] ([[User talk:Podehaye\|talk]]) 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	:: {{reply_to\|Podehaye}} erm, well, it is showing the source of this specific collects-snak, so I think that makes it a qualifier, right? A property, that is being used as a qualifier? I think some properties (such as comment) could apply either as a qualifier on a snak or as a property on an Item - whereas some properties like source would apply typically only as a qualifier upon a snak. Right? If I am using concepts incorrectly, please let me know - it's certainly possible I have the wrong mental model!

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:24, 11 February 2020
Line 1:		Line 1:
		+	== qualifiers too? ==
		+
	This is a great idea. And that graph is fantastic! I wonder if we should add something similar "qualifiers for this property".		This is a great idea. And that graph is fantastic! I wonder if we should add something similar "qualifiers for this property".
	I would for example add {{P\|27}} and {{Q\|1117}} as qualifiers typically added under {{P\|10}}. Thoughts {{reply_to\|Podehaye}} {{reply_to\|Hanz0mon}}? -- [[User:Alexbfree\|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree\|talk]]) 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)		I would for example add {{P\|27}} and {{Q\|1117}} as qualifiers typically added under {{P\|10}}. Thoughts {{reply_to\|Podehaye}} {{reply_to\|Hanz0mon}}? -- [[User:Alexbfree\|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree\|talk]]) 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
		+
		+	: {{reply_to\|Alexbfree}} yes, we should seek to extend this technique to have the expressivity you are seeking with the page [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]. one comment though: you use {{Q\|1117}} as a qualifier, but I think you mean a property, no? (also on [[Project:Vocabulary/GDPR]]). [[User:Podehaye\|Podehaye]] ([[User talk:Podehaye\|talk]]) 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)