Wikidata:Property proposal/Cephalopod Ontology entity ID

Cephalopod Ontology entity ID

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Done: Cephalopod Ontology ID (P9334) (Talk and documentation)

Description	identifier for an anatomical entity in Cephalopod Ontology, an anatomical and developmental ontology for cephalopods
Represents	Cephalopod Ontology (Q104030182)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	anatomical entity (Q27043950)
Example 1	stylet (Q7629472) → 0000245
Example 2	photosensitive vesicle (Q104030333) → 0000200
Example 3	gill (Q132390) → 0000122
Formatter URL	http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CEPH_$1

Motivation

I found that stylet (Q7629472) currently has no good authority reference and referencing Cephalopod Ontology seems desireable. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Anatomy

Discussion

Question Hello ChristianKl Can you explain this modification to me? Do you know the usefulness of the "domain" field? Do you want item-requires-statement constraint (Q21503247) to replace subject type constraint (Q21503250)? Can you explain these modifications to me, knowing that organ (Q712378) has anatomical structure (Q4936952) for subclass ? Based on these questions, do you think there will be no violation between your changes and the property you are proposing? Can you put links to your examples, please? Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 11:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- cardinal body part (Q17781690) subclasses anatomical structure (Q4936952) clean ontology suggests that items shouldn't be both instances and subclasses at the same time. The domain here is supposed to be represented by subclassing. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Yes, in Wikidata there is Q17781690 P279 Q4936952, that's correct. The "domain" field is difficult to understand and it is easy to mix everything up. I prefer that users understand how it works by themselves. Since you haven't replied to my questions, do you want us to go step by step? —Eihel (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC) —Eihel (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eihel, ChristianKl: - has this question been addressed; is this suitable to be marked as "ready"? JesseW (talk) 13:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@JesseW: There is no opinion for or against creation, so the proposal remains in this state. —Eihel (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Eihel: What can we do to move it along? JesseW (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Looks fine to me. @JesseW: if you support this property proposal can you indicate it here also? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure. Also marked as "ready". JesseW (talk) 18:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, an important property for biology.--Arbnos (talk) 01:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl, Eihel, JesseW, ArthurPSmith, Arbnos: Done as Cephalopod Ontology ID (P9334). UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 08:45, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]