Difference between revisions of "Property talk:P291"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
* Snak = Property + Value (where value could be an Item, Property, text or something else). | * 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 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) | Is this right? [[User:Alexbfree|Alexbfree]] ([[User talk:Alexbfree|talk]]) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 17:01, 11 February 2020
qualifiers too?
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 named as (P27) and source (Q1117) as qualifiers typically added under collects (P10). Thoughts @Podehaye: @Hanz0mon:? -- Alexbfree (talk) 15:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Alexbfree: yes, we should seek to extend this technique to have the expressivity you are seeking with the page Project:Vocabulary/GDPR.
discussion about source (Q1117)
- @Alexbfree: one comment though: you use source (Q1117) as a qualifier, but I think you mean a property, no? (also on Project:Vocabulary/GDPR). Podehaye (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
- @Podehaye: erm, well, it is showing the source of this specific collects (P10)-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 (Q1048)) could apply either as a qualifier on a snak or as a property on an Item - whereas some properties like source (Q1117) 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! Alexbfree (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
@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 snak of an Item property.
Is this right? Alexbfree (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)