Property talk:Monday closing time supermarket

[edit] Combining too many concepts?

Ok, this is madness... if a semantic community tolerates this kind of attributes, the ontology is doomed IMHO. Who needs zillions of attributes? No offense to the creator of these attributes:-) --Joris Gillis 11:44, 11 September 2006 (CEST)

I am trying out the possibilities of SMW on a practical example. What exactly is the problem? --Patrick 11:53, 11 September 2006 (CEST)

Of course there's nothing wrong with filling up this SMW with test examples (you yourself are doing quite a miraculous job on that matter) - but just imagine these kind of attributes on a semantic wikipedia... If an ontology allows Attribute:Monday closing time supermarket , what about attribute:cinema playtime Star Wars episiode II undertitled in dutch wednesday afternoon autumn 2003 start time ? Attribute:Monday closing time supermarket combines 4 concepts: a concept of a supermarket, the concept of time, the concept of a day of the week and the concept of the state of a shop. All of which can be expressed in their own articles. What we need is a formal way to combine these concepts without inventing a separate attribute for each possible combination of these concepts. But I'm to unfamiliar with semantics/ontology to know if this is even possible...--Joris Gillis 17:34, 11 September 2006 (CEST)

The closing times throughout the week are given by an array of 7 elements. I do not think we can have an attribute of type "array"; and if we put all in one string we need a function to extract substrings. Therefore I used 7 attributes. The same would apply for times of opening (which I have not dealt with for simplicity).

Currently this is an attribute of a public transport stop giving info about any nearby supermarket. This is done similarly for two other types of shops, so for the closing times we have a 3x7 array needing 21 attributes.

Alternatively the shop can be made a separate article, then this can have an Attribute:Monday closing time (together 7 instead of 21). I may try that also. A disadvantage, considering the limits on the number of steps in a query (maximally 3), is that this uses up an extra step.--Patrick 21:49, 11 September 2006 (CEST)

I used the 7 attributes like Attribute:Monday closing time on the IKEA page, and I confirmed that the closing times of IKEA can be found with a query on the page for the line on which it is, while the closing times of a supermarket can even be found with a query on the page for any directly reachable stop.--Patrick 23:48, 11 September 2006 (CEST)

Thus, suppose we have 100 stops with 21 data values each, then we can put 21 attribute values on each of the 100 pages, or 7 on each of 300 pages, or 1 on each of 2100 pages, etc. The latter means we have simply one Attribute:time, but excessively specialized pages like Closing of supermarket near Leiden Centraal on Monday.--Patrick 23:56, 11 September 2006 (CEST)

With regard to the film program example, suppose we consider 100 screens for 50 days with 4 screenings a day, then we have 20,000 4-tuples (cinema, film, day, time) or 5-tuples with screen nr. So the number of pages times the number of attributes or relations times the number of attribute values per attribute or relation objects per relation, per subject, must also be at least 20,000. So keeping the number of attributes or relations small, as you suggest, causes the other two factors to be large, with very specialized pages and/or long lists of annotations with composite info as attribute value.

For example, we can have with only one attribute:

• the page Black Book, and the attribute [[screening:=Pathé De Munt 14-9-2006 13:30, 17, 20:30]]
• the page Black Book in Pathé De Munt, and the attribute [[screening:=14-9-2006 13:30, 17, 20:30]]
• the page Black Book in Pathé De Munt on 14-9-2006, and the attribute [[screening:= 13:30, 17, 20:30]] or the attributes [[screening:= 13:30]][[screening:= 17]][[screening:= 20:30]]

We can also have an attribute for every cinema, or every movie, or every day, or even more if we have one for every combination of two of these items.--Patrick 00:53, 12 September 2006 (CEST)

User:movGP0 proposes an alternative --84.194.112.7 09:26, 12 September 2006 (CEST)

My answer referred to possibilities of the current software, the alternative is about a possible extension. I agree that that would be useful. Now each relation and attribute is given by pairs (page, page) or (page, value), the extension would allow e.g. 4-tuples such as (film, location, date, time) and (shop, weekday, opening/closing, time).--Patrick 10:25, 12 September 2006 (CEST)