Property talk:P2010

Documentation

Exif make
string of the manufacturer as it appears in the EXIF generated by a specific digital camera model

Description

literal string as it appears in the exif generated by a specific digital camera model. Together with Exif model, this should identify a specific camera model. See Exif format#Example or #metadata on an image

Represents

Exchangeable image file format (Q196465)

Data type

String

Domain

digital cameras (note: this should be moved to the property statements)

Allowed values

[A-Za-z][A-Za-z\., \-]{2,30}

Example

Sony Alpha 550 (Q1041905) → SONY
Olympus C-740UZ (Q7089219) → OLYMPUS OPTICAL CO.,LTD
Olympus C-750 Ultra Zoom (Q20859081) → OLYMPUS CORPORATION
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Mark II (Q19297634) → OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Samsung Galaxy S7 (Q22893875) → samsung

Datatype[edit]

@Tobias1984, Jura1: I was for the item datatype, not for the string one :/ author TomT0m / talk page 09:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, we're making the property discussion again, I was for the string datatype on the digital camera manufacturer domain, would you agree we change the domain ? author TomT0m / talk page 09:09, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TomT0m: To me string-datatype makes more sense (No translation needed). Domain-change from camera model to manufacturer means that the information will be spread out, instead of being available in one item. It will make the code for the infoboxes more complicated. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:21, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobias1984: it's a discussion we should have had before the property creation :) It means duplication of information. I don't see how the information is useful in an infobox as we just need the manufacturer, the exif string is just an identifier for a manufacturer. In Wikidata canonical identifiers are ... items. To identify a camera it's the same, we already have item. This would be useless duplication of information to solve a false problem. In the future what we really want to do is creating a query with parameters that returns the camera model from the exif information. That will bea pretty straigthforward call for a template or a function {{Camera|WHATEVER|SONY}}. It's not complicated, it's usual coding best practice and we will have to follow them to not create a mess in the name of false simplicity. author TomT0m / talk page 10:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@TomT0m: Yes. But sometimes it is better to create the property, so that people can gather experience and then redefine the property. If we don't need the information for the infobox, I also think it would be better to store it with the camera maker (Hopefully they stick to the same exif for all models?). --Tobias1984 (talk) 10:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also hope they are not stupid enough to have several labels :) but if they are I guess we could store all of them in the manufacturer item and the query will still work as the pair is still supposed to be an identifier. I guess we'll just have to wait for Jura's opinion. author TomT0m / talk page 10:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to add to Tobias'. We had seen a sample in the creation discussion. TomT0m seems to have a usecase in mind we ignore. Maybe you could detail it? --- Jura 07:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: It seems to me that Tobias1984 mostly agrees with me. author TomT0m / talk page 08:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with him as well. Can you detail your usecase? I think I will do as suggested by Tobias: watch you implement it and then review your work in a few months. --- Jura 04:34, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Your usecase, if I understand well, is "storing a camera identifiers". Why are the camera identifiers used for ? Finding a camera. My usecase is identical to yours then. Do you have something else in mind ? author TomT0m / talk page 18:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Then, with my model : WDQ request to find any camera model whose are manufactured by the manufacturer with exif identifier "SONY" : CLAIM[176:string[2010:"SONY"]] Wikidata Query. With your model, it's string[2010:"SONY"] Wikidata Query that's really different :) except in the first case, we will have stored "SONY" only once, and there still be manufacturer (P176) in the camera model item. (oups, I wrote that in french) author TomT0m / talk page 18:32, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do your sample without templates and using an Olympus model? It would be easier to read and attempt to understand. --- Jura 08:56, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: I don't understand your request. author TomT0m / talk page 09:20, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus is another camera maker. --- Jura 07:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: That part I did. It's everything else I did not. Please be clear. author TomT0m / talk page 10:51, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's easier if you try to explain what you didn't understand. You were already highly confusing on the property proposal page. Just to recall where you were: You had a use case, you wanted to adapt a property proposal for this. I asked you to provide a sample with an Olympus camera model for it. --- Jura 04:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: This is nonsense. You're just forcing me to say stuffs I never said and keep avoiding answering. author TomT0m / talk page 06:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. It would have saved time if you had answered before that you don't have a usecase and your sample wont work for Olympus. --- Jura 07:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1: Oh yes there is a problem. Don't blame me, you just keep problems for yourself, claiming yourself you've got a usecase that won't work without disclosing it and challenge me to find it myself, making personal attacks ? That's an unhelpful and disgusting way to discuss. The way to do in a collaborative project is to collaborate. What's your usecase ? author TomT0m / talk page 08:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to figure out how your suggestions would work when building statements. The Olympus sample was given in the creation debate and works with the current property definition. Yet, you state you avoid addressing it (or was that something else?). I think we have to accept questions about how our property proposals (or modification thereof) can result in building statements (there is no point in having unused properties: there are other fora for abstract discussions). If one keeps bringing up property proposals (or modification of proposals) that don't aim for actual use, it wont help build the database. Instead people spend time discussing, getting pinged or creating unused properties. Please excuse if you feel that you are being blamed for spending the time discussing it with you, but, if anyone, I'm actually to blame myself for letting myself do that. I might have misunderstood this, but it seems that you don't plan to actually use the property or contribute any statement, but I would obviously want to encourage you do to so. --- Jura 05:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Property talk:P2010

Documentation

Datatype[edit]

Navigation menu

Search