Wikidata:Property proposal/hyperonym - Wikidata

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

Tubezlob (🙋) 15:11, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

•   Weak oppose. This should be handled by linking to items and linking the items by subclass of (P279) instead. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Deryck Chan: I may be wrong, but can subclass of (P279) make the distinction between hyperonym and holonym? (not sure but I don't think so). For instance 'cat' is an hyperonym of 'persian cat' (Persian cat (Q42610)) but 'cat' is an holonym of 'cat fur' (not a good example as it's two words in English), it seems to be both subclass of (P279) for Q items but for L items, it's two different things. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    There are languages where 'cat fur' is not a compound? --Denny (talk) 17:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @VIGNERON, Denny: "Holonym" is part of (P361) (part -> whole) and has part(s) (P527) (whole -> part). P527 even has alias "holonym of". Deryck Chan (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    @Denny: I don't know if some languages have one word for 'cat fur' (but I wouldn't be surprise if there was ; and there is one lemme in some languages like "Katzenfell"@de, it's a compound but still one lemme, and I see now that we even have an item for it: cat fur (Q20825926), with no has part(s) (P527) of house cat (Q146) ;) ), anyway not need to specify 'cat', 'fur' alone has for holonym 'cat'. @Deryck Chan, Denny: "hyperonyn" could be also an alias of has part(s) (P527), no? Anyhow, I still think that Q items are not precise enough for this semantic distinction. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 19:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support: I don't think we'll have items for every word sense. --Denny (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•   Support Given that different language handle different concepts differently I would expect there to be cases where we don't get the right solution by relying on linking to items.

Additionally, it's useful for data-users to be able to easily query the hypernym. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:15, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support as the inverse of #hyponym, see there. Explicitly modeling inverse relationships has been established as good practice in Wikidata; it's the kind of redundancy that improves resilience. -- Duesentrieb (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I do agree that this inverse property is good, I don't think there's a general judgement in Wikidata that it's established as good practice. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:30, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

•   Support. -- Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•   Weak oppose If we use this property, we may have to duplicate the hypernym relation across all synonymous senses of a given concept. This would create unnecessary redundancies as, for nouns, we can link senses to Wikidata items which already have hypernym relations established centrally. For verbs on the other hand, we can use the provided troponym of property. Liamjamesperritt (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•   Support. Don Rumata 18:46, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
•   Oppose this should be handled between concepts (items) KaMan (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
•   Done @AKA MBG, Duesentrieb, Denny, ChristianKl, DonRumata, Tubezlob: please make good use of it. --- Jura 13:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]