Iwan.Aucamp

Question from your user page. I looked into that and decided the answer was no. This is part of an effort to use MeSH descriptor ID (P486) to match MeSH identifiers 1-to-1 into Wikidata. Which would have significant applications.

But it's a good kind of question. Wikidata is more discriminating than Wikipedia in terms of trying to keep its ontology straight. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:56, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Charles Matthews: Thanks for the feedback, the initiative sounds great, hope it goes well. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 17:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I've added the property creator flag to your account, per your request. Please see Wikidata:Property creators or ping me if you have any questions. Thanks for volunteering --DannyS712 (talk) 18:02, 14 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hello and well done for your first creation, P7963.  

I also added an example. However, I have a few comments for you:

1. Once your Property is finished, you must also notify Wikidata Projects. They will be able to add, maintain and use the property to their list. But it must be done wisely. Indeed, in this category, we note that certain projects mentioned in the proposal are also subcategories. In this case, you must notify the Biology project. I allowed myself to contact them.

@Eihel: Thanks for notifying them, I will notify wikiprojects that were notified in the discussion when creating properties in future. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

1. You have to be more conscientious than the proponent or the voters, because many agree with the concept of the future property without paying attention to the construction of this same property. cell type (Q189118) is intuitively a good domain idea, but it doesn't work for macrophage (Q184204) or for the example I added, bronchial epithelial cell (Q30029740). The concept of related data should be kept in mind. I suggest you consult Help:Basic membership properties. If in doubt or depending on the future use of the property, go up the classes to obtain an element that will include all the identifiers (without going back too far, of course). In your case, cell type (Q189118)subclass of (P279)anatomical structure (Q4936952) is suitable for macrophage (Q184204), but not suitable for bronchial epithelial cell (Q30029740). Here the solution.

@Eihel: I took this problem up at Property_talk:P7963#type_constraint - your change might work but it is not the only possible option. I will ping the projects there so we can get some agreement in property discussion. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 09:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Eihel: Actually the wikiprojects were notified there already but there has been little engagement. I think the constraint relation (P2309)subclass of (Q21514624) AND class (P2308)cell (Q7868) may make more sense - I get it wont cover bronchial epithelial cell (Q30029740) but the answer there may be that bronchial epithelial cell (Q30029740) is wrong (which I think it is). I think it is better to be overly restrictive (while still right) than overly lax on such a constraint. Either way we should discuss at the property talk page which is the appropriate venue for such discussions. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good continuation. —Eihel (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

Oooh OK, I watched the TP right after your creation. Not being part of the projects mentioned, everything escaped me. Meet there. —Eihel (talk) 10:12, 21 March 2020 (UTC)Reply

At the discussion over at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Talk:Q5880 you were interested in moving forward on getting a consistent anatomy ontology. At the moment input at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Ontology_of_Anatomy/draft is needed. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)Reply