Wikidata:Property proposal/greater than (2)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
greater than[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | instances of the item have a greater value than corresponding instances of the object, for the given measure |
|---|---|
| Represents | inequation (Q165309) |
| Data type | Item |
| Example | em dash (Q10941604)greater thanen dash (Q13219273) |
| Planned use | items whose relationships to other items take the form of an inequality with a known direction, but without specific values |
| See also | different from (P1889) |
Done Created as greater than (P5135). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
less than[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | instances of the item have a lesser value than corresponding instances of the object, for the given measure |
|---|---|
| Represents | inequation (Q165309) |
| Data type | Item |
| Example | aerostat (Q1299477)less thanair (Q7391292) satellite (Q1297322)less thanprimary body (Q7243056) |
| Planned use | items whose relationships to other items take the form of an inequality with a known direction, but without specific values |
| See also | different from (P1889) |
Motivation
Many, many items are defined relative to another item by an inequality: satellites of all sizes are, by definition, less massive than the bodies they orbit; aerostats are, by definition, lighter than air. No existing property allows these simple, key facts. Instances can be given numeric values, but there is no way to express the inequality that defines the entire class of satellites, or aerostats.
Two qualifiers are suggested (see examples):
- criterion used (P1013) (mandatory): The measure by which the items are being compared. Without this, the parent statement is meaningless.
determination method (P459)A second criterion used (P1013): The relationship by which corresponding instances of subject and object are identified. This may be obvious in many cases, so I'd like comments on whether this qualifier should be mandatory.
See previous similar proposal; concrete concerns expressed there are addressed with the qualifiers identified above. Swpb (talk) 18:26, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
Support Thanks for refining this proposal, with this approach it does makes sense to me now. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)- Support without the use of determination method (P459), as the examples appear to use determination method (P459) somewhat incorrectly (it is meant to be used to describe the technique/method/process by which something is calculated/measured/known). Dhx1 (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Dhx1: but the lack of an appropriate contextual qualifier was the problem with the earlier version of this proposal. Do you have a better qualifier in mind? Perhaps we should propose one as a new property? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
- Not Dhx1, but my alternative would be a second criterion used (P1013). I just don't know how to handle the constraint(s). Swpb (talk) 15:01, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Dhx1: but the lack of an appropriate contextual qualifier was the problem with the earlier version of this proposal. Do you have a better qualifier in mind? Perhaps we should propose one as a new property? ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Oppose
--- Jura 11:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)- determination method (P459) replaced; qualifier values make more sense with 1013. Swpb (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
- Looks better.
--- Jura 08:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Support Just Nihil Obstat approve both. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Liuxinyu970226, Swpb, Dhx1, Jura1, ArthurPSmith: Done Created as less than (P5136). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
