Wikidata:Property proposal/conventional atomic weight

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

conventional atomic weight

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Not done
Descriptionrelative atomic mass (Q41377) of a chemical element by single number, simplified from the formal value standard atomic weight (Q28912964) when that value is an interval. Defined by CIAAW (Commission on Isotopic Abundances and Atomic Weights (Q15647945)).
Representsconventional atomic weight (Q28913027)
Data typeNumber (not available yet)
Domainchemical element (Q11344) (12 out of 118)
Allowed values\d+.\d+
Example
  • For hydrogen (H): Ar, conventional(H) = 1.008
(hydrogen (Q556) has formal standard atomic weight (Q28912964): Ar, standard(H) = [1.00784, 1.00811]. The value 1.008 is clearly not the midvalue, but a value that the authority published, source-weighted)
SourceCIAAW, technical report 2013, Chapter 7.
Planned useAdd to 12 chemical elements. Next to their standard atomic weight
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/standard atomic weight
Motivation

Proposed property standard atomic weight applies to 84 elements. Twelve of these elements have a rangeinterval value (not a single number value). That is because by source history these elements have different isotopes abundances (so it is not about uncertainty). For situations where this exactness is not needed, such as trade, CIAAW has published 'conventional' values for simplified use.

Adding this value to Wikidata by specific property id allows any user (could be automated) to use a well-sourced value for mass calculations. It should not replace the standard atomic weight, but be available next to it. The quantity symbol is Ar, which per SI for this definition could be written as Ar, conventional. DePiep (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
No, it was there when you first posted here. The diff you give is showing that I only rearranged the items in the example (with the introducing one always bracketed).
Given that you did not reply to the content of my reply (still valid), you have not motivated your rejection. Also, Andy, this BF attitude does not help you getting better answers. -DePiep (talk) 14:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't see that this adds anything to the information provided by the standard weight proposal. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The twelve values are published by CIAAW (!) to provide a second-grade single value for cases where the standard weight is an interval (hydrogen: 1.008 for [1.00784, 1.00811]). The value can not be calculated from the interval. In 'trade and commercial' situations this value can be useful enough, and easier to use (correctness wrt uncertainty, RL sources and good math). Also, given current Wikidata limits for the interval values, this value could help numbercrunching applications by avoiding the formal interval notation. (See the discussion at the 'standard' proposal). -DePiep (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Walkerma (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Benjaminabel (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC) I don't think it's necessary to create two properties for standard atomic weigth, we could simply transpose differently range numbers and values with uncertainty like this:[reply]
    • Hydrogen: Ar(H) = [1.007 84, 1.008 11] since 2009 stored as quantity: value:1.008, lowerBound:1.00784 upperBound: 1.00811
    • Helium: Ar(He) = 4.002 602(2) since 1983 stored as quantity: value:4.002602, lowerBound:4.0026018 upperBound: 4.0026022
(Your reply is relevant for the standard proposal too). That could be a way to keep the datatype numeric. However, how does a WD-Reader know whether the value is an interval or is a number-with-uncertainty? The source definition is meaningfully different. And so should be the presentation (formatting, usage). I don't think we (WD) should reform the CIAAW statement.
By definition, the 'conventional' value is not the 'standard' value. This is not a "second" property for standard atomic weight. It is a different value and so different property (well defined & sourced). -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC) (late)[reply]
Benjaminabel, I understand that you implicitly support creation of property standard atomic weight. Your comment (!vote) is welcome there. -DePiep (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Again, in this tree-set of proposals: if it is 'unclear' to you as you said, why not !vote: defer? Clarity could arrive later on. -DePiep (talk) 18:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose. The trio of proposals is confused and duplicative of mass (P2067). The proposals want the quantity to be a pure ratio (i.e., number), but that ratio is just the [atomic mass]/[some standard atomic mass unit]. In other words, the unit of measurement for atomic mass is [some standard atomic mass unit]. mass (P2067) can use dalton (Q483261) (u or Dalton). The topic is about a physical quantity, so having units attached to the value is a plus; a normalized value query (psn:) should work. We don't want one dimensionless property for temperature ratio to one °R and another for temperature ratio to one Kelvin. Another fracture line of the proposals is tying the properties to how the numbers are specified. The "standard atomic weight" proposal is supposed to be an interval, the "conventional atomic weight" proposal is supposed to be a single number derived from "standard atomic weight", and "relative atomic mass" is the "standard atomic weight" for nonstandard situations. Quantities already do that. For the first case, one can query P2067 for wikibase:quantityLowerBound and wikibase:quantityUpperBound to get an interval. For the second case, use wikibase:quantityAmount to get a single value. For the third case, there is no requirement that P2067 must be restricted to a particular source's definition. Yes, there is confusion about what upper and lower bounds may mean (what confidence level), but that problem exists throughout the project. And yes, there is a distinction between an average atomic mass of a sample and the mass of actual atoms. These proposals don't address that population issue. Glrx (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Name confusion: standard atomic weight (Q28912964) (aka atomic weight) is the principal value (in the triplet of proposals). Both "conventional a.w." and "abridged a.w." are numerical derivations (sort of roundings).
re recalculate using u (or Da): So to get the value into Wikidata, one must redefine the value? And when reading it, one should do a (reversed) calculation? Whatever that is, it is incorrect to name that a "standard atomic weight". Also, it would introduce wrong and confusing values.
re "The proposals want the quantity to be a pure ratio (i.e., number)": Sort of. It's not a proposal that "wants" something, the proposal follows the definition. Thisd is is how the standard atomic weight is defined by IUPAC (did got people Nobel prizes).
re kelvin recalculation: not related to this issue.
re "In other words, the unit of measurement for atomic mass is [some standard atomic mass unit]". Could be, but atomic mass (Q3840065) is something different, and is not the topic here.
re "... about a physical quantity, so having units attached to the value is a plus". Utter nonsense. The physical quantity itself defines which units are applicable (esp wrt its dimension). It is not for Wikidata or 'looks better' stylists to change the definition.
All in all, it looks like people here in the very first place are misunderstanding the concept and definition of standard atomic weight (Q28912964), and its (iconic) importance. From there, further misguidance follows. -DePiep (talk) 11:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DePiep, ArthurPSmith, Gstupp, Benjaminabel:@Pigsonthewing, Glrx, Gstupp, Willighagen, Walkerma: Not done, given that this proposal has gotten stale. If you are still interested in a property for this purose feel free to create a new property proposal. ChristianKl (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/conventional_atomic_weight&oldid=587520316"