Wikidata:Property proposal/official demo URL

official demo URL

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Done: official demo URL (P11201) (Talk and documentation)

Description	demo website for a software that is officially recommended by the developers of the software
Data type	URL
Domain	instance of software (Q7397)
Example 1	Rust (Q575650)official demo URLhttps://play.rust-lang.org/
Example 2	Elm (Q5366250)official demo URLhttps://elm-lang.org/try
Example 3	TypeScript (Q978185)official demo URLhttps://www.typescriptlang.org/play
Example 4	CommonMark (Q18019138)official demo URLhttps://spec.commonmark.org/dingus/
Example 5	Pygments (Q97351824)official demo URLhttps://pygments.org/demo/
Example 6	CodeMirror (Q114901858)official demo URLhttps://codemirror.net/try/
Example 7	Monaco Editor (Q114970348)official demo URLhttps://microsoft.github.io/monaco-editor/playground.html

Motivation

Many pieces of software have an official online demo/playground website where you can try the software out. I think it would be nice to have a property to make the statements shown in the above examples.

--Push-f (talk) 08:21, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• julle (talk) wd-Ryan (talk/edits) Arlo Barnes (talk) WT20 (talk) Zblace (talk) applsdev RampantSpirit (talk)
  Notified participants of WikiProject Websites. --Push-f (talk) 08:27, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Support Vilmonic (Q101116054) → https://bludgeonsoft.itch.io/vilmonic-lite -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 16:54, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
•  Comment Can "official" be removed? I think this is useful for Web APIs. Laftp0 (talk) 23:26, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  With "official" it's meant that the demo is provided by the developer of the software/service. So if the web API demo is provided by the web API provider (and not some other third party) the property could still be used ... and I think for most major web APIs that should be the case. --Push-f (talk) 23:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

  I meant web browser's API (web API (Q20202982)). Yeah it's confusing. Laftp0 (talk) 04:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  Oh ok. Well there are countless of websites where you can try out a certain web browser feature, so which one should be linked if the property isn't restricted to "official"? I am afraid that the absence of "official" might lead to people just linking their own third-party demo websites for self-promotion or disagreements between contributors which third party demo website should be linked. --Push-f (talk) 05:42, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see any downside in listing multiple demos for a given technology. We can always mark one of them as preferred. --Waldyrious (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Waldyrious: I guess the main downside would be that expressing that a demo URL is official would take more work, because you need to click on and then add the qualifier reason for preferred rank (P7452)official (Q29509043). And most people would probably not think of doing that. So you'd probably have some contributor stating the official demo URL with a normal rank without any qualifier ... and then probably some time later somebody else would add an unofficial demo URL also without any rank or qualifier. At which point we'd have just two same-ranked and unqualified demo URLs and data consumers would not know which URL to pick.

  Sidenote: official website (P856), official blog URL (P1581), official map URL (P9601), official jobs URL (P10311) all pertain only to official websites ... I do not see why we'd start linking third-party websites via URLs ... that's what external identifiers are for, like Mozilla Developer Network article (P8205) e.g. button (Q94100408)Mozilla Developer Network article (P8205)Web/HTML/Element/button) and the MDN articles usually contain a neat demo. --Push-f (talk) 08:42, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

  I take your point about the naming of existing properties. However, making it convenient to specify an official demo by setting the "official" stamp on the property would leave us with no way to model non-official demos, i.e. those provided by the community. For example, reStructuredText (Q287315)demo URLhttps://livesphinx.herokuapp.com or AsciiDoc (Q723030)demo URLhttps://asciidoclive.com.

  Besides, I don't expect there to be multiple demo sites vying for the preferred rank. It may even be the case that there are multiple unofficial demo sites (rST used to also have http://rst.ninjs.org, which unfortunately is now dead), and the reason for one of them being preferred may not be because it's official but simply because it's e.g. more fully featured.

  If we leave the "official" part out of the property, the most common case of there being a single (and official) demo site can be simply modeled without any preference rank, without making the other cases hard or impossible to model accurately. And in the (unlikely, I presume) case of there being multiple values with the same rank, consumers could simply pick the first one. Waldyrious (talk) 01:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  It's not true that this would leave us with no way to model non-official demos. If they meet Wikidata:Notability they could be modeled as separate data items, e.g:

  instance of (P31)demo website (Q115124505) & URL (P2699)https://rst-demo.example.org/ & main subject (P921)reStructuredText (Q287315).

  If they do not meet Wikidata:Notability, I do not think that unofficial demo websites should be modeled at all within Wikidata.

  I am afraid your two examples perfectly illustrate my point:

  • AsciiDoc (Q723030)demo URLhttps://asciidoclive.com ... there also is an official demo website at https://asciidoc.org/#try
  • reStructuredText (Q287315)demo URLhttps://livesphinx.herokuapp.com ... Sphinx is a superset of rST ... this wrong statement has the potential to confuse people about what rST actually is

  I have updated the property description to "demo website for a software that is officially recommended by the developers of the software". Note that this does not exclude demos maintained by the community, just demos that are not recommended by the developers. So e.g. the official RST website is referring the reader to http://rst.ninjs.org/, making it suitable for "official demo URL" (though it probably should be qualified with earliest end date (P8554) since the website is, as you noted, dead). If they would update their link to point to an RST demo that actually works, that would suffice for it to be stated with "official demo URL".

  --Push-f (talk) 07:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds fair. I'll change my vote. Waldyrious (talk) 16:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

•  Conditional support as long as the "official" part is removed, as proposed by Laftp0 above. --Waldyrious (talk) 19:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

  Changed to  Support per discussion above about the meaning of "official" for this property. Waldyrious (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

• @Push-f, Wd-Ryan, Waldyrious:  Done --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 14:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)