Wikidata:Property proposal/has ingredient

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

has ingredient

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done
Descriptionlists ingredients of food (dishes, baked goods, drinks, etc)
Representsingredient (Q10675206)
Data typeItem
Domainfood (Q2095)
Examplebread (Q7802) → flour (Q36465), water (Q283), baker's yeast (Q911712); pineapple juice (Q3190226) → pineapple (Q10817602); chocolate (Q195) → cocoa bean (Q208008)
Motivation

There are a lot of item for dishes, baked goods, drinks, and it would help to be able to list ingredients. At the moment, often "has part" (has part(s) (P527)) is used, but a) this is overworked and b) it is imperfect as the ingredients are not necessarily present in the finished product, as they may have been transformed (a cake cannot be divided back into flour, eggs, etc).

On the other hand some users prefer "material used" (made from material (P186)), but this is even more imperfect, as ingredients are not materials (as of the moment of writing, some thirty thousand constraint violations for P186!); P186 requires the filled-in value to be a subclass of "material" (material (Q214609)). And "material" (Q214609) is the subject of "material science" materials science (Q228736), which obviously does not concern itself with ingredients. - Brya (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
This when limited to chemical process (Q2281940). Can we expand it (make abstract) for other processes as well? (scaffold (Q233320) is an 'ingredient' for construction (Q385378); money (Q1368) is an 'ingredient' for gambling (Q11416) - crude examples). -DePiep (talk) 15:16, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The intent is to use this for ingredients of food. It seems clear enough that concrete (Q22657) is a different case altogether; made from material (P186) seems a decent fit there. - Brya (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re "The intent is ...", "It seems clear enough that ...": the issue is that it is not clear. Especially not by orthographic check-questions ('why is food ingredient different from cement ingredient?'). I'd like to learn more, but your reply does not help. Please clarify. -DePiep (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure where you are heading, you seem to be all over the place, dragging in scaffold (Q233320) and money (Q1368). - Brya (talk) 11:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Notified participants of WikiProject Food
Both P186 and P527 seem appropriate if we pick appropriate alternative label.
@Brya: Meaning of "material" could be narrow "Cloth or fabric" or loose "The matter from which a thing is or can be made" (includes food IMO) d1g (talk) 20:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in general English, the word "material" can be used for all kinds of things, like "[i]nformation or ideas for use in creating a book or other work.", "[i]tems, such as songs or jokes, comprising a performer's act." (taken from the link you provided). However, that is not the question here. What matters here is the concept represented by material (Q214609), which is stated to be the concept studied by materials science (Q228736). A pretty big concept, and one which is generally taken to exclude food and food stuffs.
        On the other hand, food and food stuffs make up a pretty big field by themselves. It would be very handy to have a property to express relationships between food and its ingredients, and not to use the equivalent of "built from". - Brya (talk) 05:48, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It also includes all industrial processes and practical standards.
228736 isn't different from practical application of chemistry or physics it is just less abstract from the start.
Reactions between food and materials are necessary to design containers. I don't see why it is "excluded". d1g (talk) 20:24, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From the perspective of chemistry or physics,
  • materials come from varied sources, and the steps used to come to a finished product (usually) involve physics rather than chemistry, but the end products are (mostly) evaluated from a physics perspective (tensile strength, insulation value, wear resistance, etc, etc).
  • food ingredients predominantly are from biological sources (usually through agriculture), and (almost invariably) are not uniform in composition (chemically). Food ingredients are processed (usually) to become food, and this involves chemical changes. Food is evaluated from a biological/chemical/medical perspective (is it harmless, is it sustaining, does it have the right components, like essential amino acids, essential fats, etc, etc).
Lots of (substantial) differences. - Brya (talk) 11:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Support I don't know whether it would be appropriate to extend the domain like suggested above, but I agree that this would be useful for food and that food is a large enough domain of its own. If we decide at some point that it's a subset of an existing property, then we can use subproperty of (P1647), but that's a question for people who care about how properties are related and I wouldn't expect most users who are trying to add ingredients to care about that. - Nikki (talk) 07:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand your feeling that an additional property would be wanted (or more than one, for that matter), but I don't see that this would be a reason to vote against this proposal. Why not make a proposal for such an additional property? - Brya (talk) 05:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya:
  • We have "ingredients" as alias in P186.
  • My point is not to create properties when we cannot say how they are different from old ones or if they don't bring new information
  • You switch discussion to other things instead of explaining how "ingridients" property would be used differently from older properties. d1g (talk) 22:12, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, yes, somebody put in "ingredients" as an alias in P186, even though it is really very different from the other aliases. But this is easily remedied, just a matter of removing it.
  • I don't see that new properties should bring new information. But indeed they should be different from existing properties, and there are huge differences here: food is a hugely important topic (people eat every day) and there has been enough written about food to fill libraries, and indeed material is a hugely important topic (people don't make things every day, but they wear clothes, handle objects, tools and implements every day) and there has been enough written about materials to fill libraries. There is very little overlap between the two (edible underwear, etc notwithstanding).
  • I am not switching anything. Wikidata is supposed to store structured data, and to be able to structure the data there must be properties. No properties, no structure. - Brya (talk) 11:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a property. Adding a property over an existing one do not add structure, it adds redundancy. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • If there is no overlap, how can there be redundancy? - Brya (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Because there is a split of very similar cases. Two sets of constraints that partially overlap. You don’t capture that there is something common into this two situations so you’re bound to reinvent the wheel. And you gain nothing until proven there is something to gain. Multiply this by the potential domain fork that can occur virtually everywhere and you’ll start having a vision of the useless extra work community will gain following that road. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • The cases are not similar. Being wacked in the head with a book is very different from tasting a pie. Describing a book is very different from describing a pie. And speaking of constraints, I think some thirty thousand [!!!] constraint violations for P186 is very worrisome. Very messy, indeed. - Brya (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • It’s about making a pie or making a book … if you want to speak about what is eventually in the final product, please clarify. What’s
          • What’s wrong about the constraints violation ? As mentioned above, maybe it’s the constraint who is wrong. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • A pie is made to be eaten and soon; if it is not eaten it will spoil. A book is made to be read, for a long time, and should last centuries. The ingredients that go into a pie as a class are strictly delimited. The materials that go into a book in theory are not delimited, but in practice they are. There is no overlap.
            • I think thirty thousand [!!!] constraint violations for P186 is as clear a sign as can be that something is very wrong. The constraint is not wrong although the property could be; perhaps it could be "made from"? However that sounds like a really wide-ranging property. - Brya (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Wait  Oppose No usecase that can be solved properly in current state. author  TomT0m / talk page 12:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
 Question @DePiep, Brya, D1gggg, Pigsonthewing: I’m in doubt, suddenly. Is there a difference between a raw material (Q192355)  View with Reasonator View with SQID used by industry and a processed material as a meal that is the result of the transformation ? For example, iron ore (Q191552)  View with Reasonator View with SQID has been used at some point to build the eiffel tower, but I would not say that the Eiffel tower is made of iron ore (Q191552)  View with Reasonator View with SQID. There is iron in the result for sure. I feel there is something we fail to capture, maybe the difference beetween the final result and the making process. Thoughts ????
breadmaking (Q3063799) See for example the item about bread making. It’s the process of making bread … and it deserves its own article. The article says (in french) « it’s the process of turning flour (Q36465) into HTTPS://WWW.WIKIDATA.ORG/WIKI/Q7802 ». This highlights the need for a property for manufacturing processes to link them to the class of products they produces. author  TomT0m / talk page 19:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we are indeed missing several properties. - Brya (talk) 19:15, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What would be useful is a picture about which one. Do you agree with my analysis ? what’s the status of this proposal wrt. this problem (if there is one). author  TomT0m / talk page 13:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is a property P1056 to connect breadmaking (Q3063799) and bread (Q7802), so that is not one we are missing. The Eiffel tower is made of wrought iron (wrought iron (Q860451)), which lists "has part" "iron" and "carbon"; this is not complete information but goes a long way. But above are mentioned medication (Q12140), chemical substance (Q79529), composite material (Q181790) and concrete (Q22657); there may be scope for one or two additional properties there. And obviously, there should be a property "nutritional values". But I am not going there; proposing a property a) means a responsibility to take care of it later and b) requires some knowledge in depth of the field involved. - Brya (talk) 18:10, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/has_ingredient&oldid=588778780"