Wikidata:Property proposal/descriptive solubility
descriptive solubility[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science
Motivation[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry
- See also comments in Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/35#P2178.
In some cases there is no exact value of solubility in the reference, but a mere description. There are a few reasons for this qualifier:
- sometimes we don't have an exact value of solubility available (probably it is available in general, but we don't have time or resources to find it); however, the information if substance A is soluble in substance B — even without an exact value — may be important, even to quickly find out in which solvents the substance can dissolve, and then look for value for a specific solvent
- right now we don't have a way to tell that substance is practically insoluble – many sources state that substance is insoluble/practically insoluble without giving any value
- also, we don't have a way to tell that substance is miscible in other substance
This proposal is to create a qualifier for existing solubility (P2177), used only if there is no exact value for solubility of a specific substance in a specific solvent in WD. Such statement should be modified accordingly if someone have a source with value for this solvent – that means this qualifier in many cases should be used temporarily. This qualifier is meant to be item-datatype with only a few allowed values which would prevent from adding ambiguous comments.
- 1. proposal
- new qualifier descriptive solubility as proposed above
| solubility |
| ||||||||||||||||
| add value | |||||||||||||||||
- 2. proposal
- using sourcing circumstances (P1480)/nature of statement (P5102)
| solubility |
| ||||||||||||||||
| add value | |||||||||||||||||
- 3. proposal (proposed by ArthurPSmith below)
- using object named as (P1932) (see example below or example in Q312244)
| solubility |
| ||||||||||||||||
| add value | |||||||||||||||||
However, object named as (P1932) is string-datatype, so it wouldn't be possible to use items like practically insoluble (Q87723625), only term in the source language. EDIT: Proposal #3 added: Wostr (talk) 23:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
---
But I'm not sure that this would be better, to use general qualifiers to such specific situation. Wostr (talk) 16:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
- maybe object named as (P1932) with a string value could be used for this purpose? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, that's could be another option to achieve the same. Thanks for that. Wostr (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
- Arthur's "solution" sounds soluble to me. --99of9 (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Support sounds like a reasonable proposal to me. Of course, ideally we have exact data, but I think this is indeed quite useful. --Egon Willighagen (talk) 08:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)- Support This will be very useful for working chemists. Walkerma (talk) 20:43, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Egon Willighagen, Walkerma: thanks for participating in this discussion; could you elaborate – are you supporting the creation of a new property or the method proposed by ArthurPSmith? Wostr (talk) 22:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Wostr: Mainly I'd like to see a way to include an inexact solubility in some way. I think #1 is the clearest, but if we are trying not to create new qualifiers then #3 seems OK. I found use of P805 (see below) rather a confusing solution, but I'm quite inexperienced on Wikidata so that may just be me. Walkerma (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Wostr, Walkerma: I also don't understand the P805 proposal below. I guess I can see the usefulness of having an item value for this property, so I'm not strongly pushing for my approach (#3 above now). ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Wostr: Mainly I'd like to see a way to include an inexact solubility in some way. I think #1 is the clearest, but if we are trying not to create new qualifiers then #3 seems OK. I found use of P805 (see below) rather a confusing solution, but I'm quite inexperienced on Wikidata so that may just be me. Walkerma (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I think using statement is subject of (P805) as qualifier is the right way:
| solubility |
| ||||||||||||||||
| add value | |||||||||||||||||
--Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 06:07, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
- No - the "subject of the statement" is "solubility of cetyl alcohol in ethyl ether" which does not have an item.--GZWDer (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
- On second thought, I'll Support a property like this that could work for any physical quantity, not just solubility. The property could be called 'quantity in scale' or 'descriptive quantity'. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 00:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Wostr: what do you think about Tinker Bell thought? Would a "generic property" ("quantity in scale" or "descriptive quantity") satisfy you? Pamputt (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pamputt, I have no opinion on this, I don't know if a more general qualifier would be useful in other situations; maybe you should ask other participants of this discussion. Wostr (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith, 99of9, Egon Willighagen, Walkerma: what do you think about Tinker Bell's proposal? Pamputt (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Pamputt: "descriptive quantity" sounds good to me. Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- That change would make the number of possible values endless and one-of-constraints impossible or impractical. It's somewhat similar to Wikidata:Property proposal/quantification instruction --- Jura 20:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Pamputt: "descriptive quantity" sounds good to me.
- @ArthurPSmith, 99of9, Egon Willighagen, Walkerma: what do you think about Tinker Bell's proposal? Pamputt (talk) 11:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- Pamputt, I have no opinion on this, I don't know if a more general qualifier would be useful in other situations; maybe you should ask other participants of this discussion. Wostr (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Wostr: what do you think about Tinker Bell thought? Would a "generic property" ("quantity in scale" or "descriptive quantity") satisfy you? Pamputt (talk) 21:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
- interesting approach. Support --- Jura 11:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
@Wostr, ArthurPSmith, 99of9, Egon Willighagen, Walkerma, Jura1: finally, I've created descriptive solubility (P8459) in order to be able to apply strict constrains. Pamputt (talk) 10:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)