Wikidata:Requests for comment/Software statements
(Redirected from Wikidata:Requests for comment/Softwarestatements)
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Jasper Deng in topic Questions
| An editor has requested the community to provide input on "Software statements" via the Requests for comment (RFC) process. This is the discussion page regarding the issue.
If you have an opinion regarding this issue, feel free to comment below. Thank you! |
THIS RFC IS CLOSED. Please do NOT vote nor add comments.
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Hi, there are some open questions about the statements for items about software. Please comment!
Questions
[edit]main type (GND)
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Clear consensus for a piece of software to be termed as a work.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:21, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
At the moment there are two main types often used for software: "work" and "term". Work is used more often at the moment.
What is right?
work-- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
*
Comment - "work" is not a valid main type, therefore "term" is the only acceptable type. FrigidNinja 02:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)- Whoops, forgot about creative work. I would support that. FrigidNinja 02:06, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- work --Ricordisamoa 05:45, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- work --Toru10 (talk) 08:54, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- work. Funny we've to talk about. I thought GND is standardized ;) --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:09, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- work --FelGru (talk) 16:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- tpye s GND is standardized. Software (incl. video games) is (unfortunately, I think for historic reasons) type "siw", part of main type s (called "Sachbegriff"/"term"), see: Entitätencodierung: Vergaberichtlinien or take an example like ... database today due to maintenance offline ;( We can't change the GND. What we could do, is to create separate items for Property:P107 and add type "siw", see: Wikidata talk:Notability#Main types (GND). --Kolja21 (talk) 14:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I've tried to investigate this my self but I didn't found this table. I think, the question is solved with this. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
- tpye s per Kolja21.--CENNOXX (talk) 18:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- term The GND uses term (specifically siw). If we change it then we're no longer basing our GND types on GND. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Operating Systems
[edit]Unix
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Consensus is to add all (officially) supported operating systems.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
How to deal with Unix-based/like operating systems. This is also done different in different articles and Wikipedias. The main possibilities I see are:
- list all supported Unixes (Linux, MacOS X, Solaris, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, AIX…)
- can be very long and unlimited
Support We should be as specific as possible as long as it's significant. There's no reason to omit significant information. That goes for platforms other than Unix-like as well. Silver hr (talk) 21:47, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- list only "major" Unix-types: BSD instead of different BSD-Versions; Unix instead of AIX, Solaris, HP/UX and others – this would reduce it to Linux, MacOS X, BSD, Unix
- Support -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support --FelGru (talk) 16:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:27, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support Legoktm (talk) 07:24, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- list only Linux and MacOS X separately and list Unix for the rest
- Support -- Rsocol (talk) 18:22, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support--Snaevar (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- list only Unix
- decide fore each item for it's own.
Java
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Java is simply not an operating system, both according to its Wikipedia articles and the below discussion. No comments on listing all operating systems for Java.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- operating system = Java
- Support -- Rsocol (talk) 18:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Oppose Listing which operating systems support Java is not an issue, but falsely saing that Java is an operating system is.--Snaevar (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per Snaevar. We cannot claim Java is an operating system. However, Java, other frameworks and operating systems are software platforms in a general sense, so that could be a common property perhaps. Silver hr (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- List all operating systems Java is available for.
.Net
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Windows is a valid operating system, per below and its Wikipedia article.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
- .Net
- Oppose .Net as a value for "Operating system" because it's not. Silver hr (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- MS Windows
- Support. I would list Linux only if the software was specifically designed/tested/supported to be compatible with Linux (using Mono). -- Rsocol (talk) 18:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 00:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose Same issue as with Java above. .Net is not an operating system.--Snaevar (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- MS Windows, Linux (cause of Mono)
- MS Windows, Linux only if running with Mono
Cross-platform
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Insufficient discussion materialized for this - closed as no consensus.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:33, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Cause written in pure C, or similar
- own item named 'cross-platform'
- list "all" OS
Free Software vs. Open Source vs FLOSS
[edit]- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- There is no consensus for any of the proposals.--Jasper Deng (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Should free and open source software be tagged with:
- is a instance of = Free Software
- is a instance of = Open-source software
- is a instance of = Free/Libre Open Source Software
- Support -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 00:00, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- or multiples of this.
- Comment How about simply "instance of = software" with "license = Foo"? I'm wary of redundancy between Property:P31 and other properties. Mrwojo (talk) 03:33, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Mrwojo's proposal. FrigidNinja 04:16, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Support Mrwojo's proposal. With something like "instance of = software" with "license = GPL".--Silex6 (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- Comment As Mrwojo said I think that it should be something like "instance of = software" with "license = GPLv2" and in GPLv2 "instance of = OSI approved license". I think it's more expressive, gives all needed data and removes the ambiguity between free and open source from software items. Tpt (talk) 13:21, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. At moment all votes are against tagging a software with the license type at all, see here. It doesn't matter if we tag this in an own property or as value of 'is a instance of'. The type can be retrieved from the license itself. All we need is the right query command, which we have to use for the infoboxes (software --> query license --> query license type). However, you can take your original question and rewrite it, how we should label the type of a license (not a software itself). I --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)Hope you understand what I mean. --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:03, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- I think the votes were to Oppose tagging software with 'license type' (as proposed here), since that could be original research. Tagging with License is a different thing and shouldn't have that problem so I suggest we change this to a 'License' property. Filceolaire (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see how this is a decision making fact. It might as well not be original research. Plus there is a lot of proprietary licence for example, often one (or several) by software, so the licence property might be useless in a lot of situation. We could for example have one item by licence, and a set of properties to describe a licence, but it is a lot of work, which could be checked by reading and citing the licence. But choosing which property could be tricky. In my opinion a generic licence type property with a set of well established type is a much more pratical solution. There exists a lot of classification already done, such as freeware, shareware, free software, ... which can be checked out one way or another. TomT0m (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- I think the votes were to Oppose tagging software with 'license type' (as proposed here), since that could be original research. Tagging with License is a different thing and shouldn't have that problem so I suggest we change this to a 'License' property. Filceolaire (talk) 10:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
- Comment Agree with Mrwojo, FrigidNinja, Tpt and Nightwish62 — Arkanosis ✉ 18:07, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- So you both support and oppose this proposal? :) FrigidNinja 13:15, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Comment See my comment there (Wikidata:Property_proposal/Creative_work#License_type). In short : licence type could be useful when licencing model is a mess. (I suggest we continue this discussion there). TomT0m (talk) 10:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Discussion to all questions
[edit]Guidelines, and then?
[edit]I appreciate your effort to this questions (even thought I didn't notice the required long discussion via the other channels before starting an RFC, but what should us bring an answer to the question? We should also think about how to implement this guidelines, that editors follow them (e.g. editor warnings or the possibility to just only use selected values). Or should we use bots which clean up wrong edits according to this guidelines we're talking here? --Nightwish62 (talk) 17:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)
- In my opinion, primary this RfC should lead to some guideline, so that we the users beeing active in the area software on Wikidata know how the should act on these. If in future, the guidelines are recognized and proven, they can be enforced by bots. But I wouldn't do this, unless the development of Wikidata is "mostly finished", since some practices me might find useful now may be not so clever once Phase III is there, etc. -- MichaelSchoenitzer (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)