Wikidata:Property proposal/model for (2)

model for and its inverse property modeled by

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Not done

Description	what the subject is a conceptual or scientific model/theory for
Represents	model (Q1979154)
Data type	Item
Domain	item (instance of/subclass of conceptual model (Q2623243) or formula (Q976981) or model (Q1979154) or theory (Q17737)… )
Example 1	data model (Q1172480) → data (Q42848)
Example 2	database model (Q267136) → database (Q8513)
Example 3	abstract data type (Q827335) → data type (Q190087)
Example 4	Navier–Stokes equations (Q201321) → fluid dynamics (Q216320)
Example 5	Peano axioms (Q842755) → non-negative integer (Q28920052)
Example 6	hybrid system (Q2665508) → cyber-physical system (Q1120057)
See also	has role in modeling (P6530), computes solution to (P2159), approximation algorithm (P1171), is the study of (P2578) Property sometimes abused for this relationship : is the study of (P2578), for example used in the relativity theory item to link to spacetime.

Motivation

There are many conceptual models and formulas that are a model for some thing. It would be nice to be able to express these relations with a simple property instead of having to use awkward statements such as abstract data type (Q827335)subclass of (P279)mathematical model (Q486902)of (P642)data type (Q190087).

There is also has role in modeling (P6530) but that does not express the same relation "has role in modeling X" does not mean that it's a model for X ... but rather that it is a part of a model for X.

Other properties (by User:Fgnievinski like represents/represented by are misused to represent this relationship.

Previously: a 2016 proposal ; a more recent one (this one is basically a reopening of the previous more examples, from the discussion); User:Push-f, the creator of the last proposal, withdrew the proposal with reason I withdraw my proposal in favor of using statements like Xhas use (P366)scientific modeling (Q1116876)of (P642)Y, and the discussion was closed by a property creator asking for a new one, which is this one. There were only support the property.

I reopen because the model proposed by Push-f is using of (P642) qualifier on a usage Search statement which is deprecated, and because I think this is a genuine relationship, very common and many examples that deserves its own property. It's also simpler, note that the model does not seem to be much used only 4 results to a corresponding query.

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, YULdigitalpreservation, ArthurPSmith, Andrew Su, Salgo60, Andrawaag: @Yair rand: (also pinging the participants to the has role in modelling discussion as I discover this was the initial proposal and it is related to [the OBO discussion https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/288] that discussed more specific properties. author TomT0m / talk page 10:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

Participants of the old discussion ping : @Push-f, The-erinaceous-one, Tinker Bell, Fgnievinski:

~~I reiterate my Support to the proposal. author TomT0m / talk page 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

Being a proposer you don't have to vote for your own proposal. Please note that having your own vote does not give you an advantage when creating a property. See WD:PCC. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kirilloparma Please consider the circumstances, this is actually a reopening of an old proposal I actually voted for. It's recreated, actually, after the property creator closing which is actually questionable because the initial proposer closed it with a bad idea and the proposal actually had only support. Creating a regular proposal on Wikidata is usually an arduous journey, please don't be a cold actor making this actually more difficult. We have very few reviewers in a lot of cases, and this is the third attempt for this important and legitimate one. author TomT0m / talk page 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TomT0m: I understand, but there are certain criteria for property creation. When you create a proposal, it is already implied that you support it and in the course of the discussion other participants who see this proposal may or may not agree with it (as in this case based on the comments below), so your own vote is not necessary. Also your vote looks rather suspicious. Why suspicious? Because this way I might think that you are deliberately or mistakenly trying to confuse property creators, who seeing your single vote might end up creating the property in question, which is against WD:PCC. In short: you don't have to vote for your own property, because as soon as you create a proposal it is already assumed that you support it. An additional vote in favor can only raise questions from the property creators, since such an action could be considered as vote manipulation. I hope I've made myself clear. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No/reject. I'm responding to the posting over at WPPhys. My knee-jerk reaction is that this is a terrible idea, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and/or science in general. If you're going to link spacetime to general relativity, then what happened to Newton or Cartan or MOND? Are you pronouncing all these other theories of spacetime to be bad/wrong/rejected? What about Kaluza Klein? Is your space-time 5-dimensional, with hidden dimensions? Kaluza-Klein did their work in the 1920's; Einstein himself spent decades on it, its a foundational concept in string theory, but you're going to reject it because you've got some preconceived notion about spacetime that matches what the folks on reddit talk about? As to the equations themselves: they also apply to fluid mechanics, and to configurations of lattices, e.g. the black hole solution (schwarzschild solution) is a soliton, that is, a Lax pair, (Belinski-Zakharov), so are you going to link Lax pairs to gravitation? Or to water (KdV eqn) or to nuclear physics (say, Skyrme model)? The QCD confinemnt of the skyrme model, the quarks can be unconfined by shrinking Einstein spacetime to about 3-4 times the size of a nucleus, at which point, the Skyrmion kind of melts and releases all the quarks: confinement is gone, due to high local space-time curvature. So is nuclear physics all about space-time, now? Yes, I've written a tirade here, but the point is to show that classifying relationships in the sciences are necessarily vague and tenuous when they're correct, and inhibit forward progress, becoming dangerous when enforced by some cultural committee. 67.198.37.16 17:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can link several theories to one kind of objects, this is not a monopolistic claim, no problem with that, it's just a claim about what theory is about what kind of object is all. You can link both Newton and MOND and Cartan to "spacetime" if that's relevant. author TomT0m / talk page 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you link space-time to 5-dimensional spacetime? There are several kinds of 5D spacetimes: the KK one, mentioned above, but also the recent results on 5D black holes with naked singularities and Cauchy horizons. They're two different kinds of 5D spacetimes. Then of course, the affine lie algebras are 26-dimensional spacetimes, unless they're fermionic, in which case they're 10-D. The obvious solution is to say "if wikipedia article X has a wikilink to topic Y in it, then X and Y are related". But to try to then say "the relationship between X and Y is that of theory and model" runs afoul of the details. 67.198.37.16 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(p.s. looking at above examples: the descriptive set theory people and the reverse mathematics people might not like your link of peano axioms to the non-negative integers. Seems like a flawed understanding of what the peano axioms are trying to do, and what they are actually used for, in day-to-day applications: how people actually use them, and what they are good for, as opposed to the ostensible "thing they describe": They describe a fragment of set theory; that fragment has a model which happens to include the non-negative integers. But what matters are the results of model theory, and not that one possible model just happens to be the non-negative integers.) 67.198.37.16 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Peano axioms are used to define the integers, in a formal model, and addition, etc. The fact that there are other models is not a problem for this property, as already said before.

As for your previous point, this property is not intended to solve all the problems nor to model every possible relationship like "this article as a link to that other one", this is nonsense. But yes, N-dimensional theories about spacetime may be link to space and time, what would precisely be the problem ? author TomT0m / talk page 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(anyway, the sentence about the links on Wikipedia pages seems to imply you are kind of against the whole Wikidata idea, so … why coming here commenting, upset about me talking about this on enwiki ?) author TomT0m / talk page 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody explain why the property 'objet of a theory' is not sufficient to link a theory to an object ? The idea of model (in science) has been much discussed in history of science and it is historically strange to apply this for instance to the Peano axioms. Perhaps, one should change the name of "object of a theory" to "important object in or for a theory", but "model" for me describes a very specific type of link (perhaps too specific for a property in Wikidata, as it may lead to debates, depending on one's epistemologic views). Thank you in advance. --Cgolds (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cgolds What property are you referring to precisely is the study of (P2578) (it's intended to link academic fields to their objects) ? has role in modeling (P6530) (which may fit but I find the example stranges, it links gene items to deseases) ? I can't find anything searching that label.

I understand that in "model theory" in maths indeed this is kind of reversed, as the "specification" (the axioms) and the objects that have theses properties (natural numbers for peano axioms) are called "models" of the theory, so yes, the term seems to be a bit off but this is the exception ? If we look at the article about « fr:Modèle scientifique », although there are not many sources, kind of reflects what is usually understand as a scientific model nowdays, and it's in that sense I think it's used.

For I dug a bit, because the "gene - disease" relationship seems way to broad, a gene is not by itself a model or a theory for a disease in any sense, that's why they renamed it : see this related discussion on the OBO ontology in link with the discussion on Wikidata about the proposal. They are talking about more specific relationships if needed, in relationship with Wikidata, and I think that's exactly related to this proposal. A gene may indeed "has a role" in modeling a disease, but it's usually far from being a whole model by itself ? They broadened the label from "is model of" to "has role in modelling" out of practical problems it seems, because it was in practice or they wanted to use it like that. I think Wikidata is larger so I think we could benefit from clarity. author TomT0m / talk page 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TomT0m I was indeed refering to objet de la discipline (P2578), but if I understand you well, this property means "what is the object(ive) of the discipline" (and it would have been better to call it "subject" then :), not "an important object of the discipline". Or is your problem with "discipline" instead of "theory" ? It is true that "model" is not very appropriate for mathematics, but even in physics you may have a lot of discussions (see above !). For the (general) relativity theory, I understood that it modelizes gravitation more than spacetime (although of course the issue theory vs model(ization) is already a difficult topic). We are looking for for "object playing an important role in" or something of the kind. Cgolds (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cgolds yes, this is this meaning, "objet" have both meanings this may be ambiguous (I think I proposed the property, and it was labelled study of but properties have a way of living their life in Wikidata, I can't fully tell what happened after). I make a difference between the process of studying something and the body of knowledge this process produces. Theories and models are output. If physics eventually everything is bound to model the real world if you take a realistic point of view, which I think we should do. Something else like "nominalism" is self-referential, in practice we reflect visions and descriptions of the world, but … how different visions are tight to each over ?

I don't think it's a problem to model both gravity and spacetime, why should this be exclusive. Although yes, "spacetime" if you look at the wikipedia articles like en:spacetime is actually defined as a class of model in which space and time are intimately tight. But in the real world it can be translated as "if we take two clocks in two referentials that moves relatively fast from each other you cannot get them synchronised, you have to take into account there speed relative to each other (and the mass repartition, for GR) to make sense of it.

There is also the distinction of a theory and a model, a theory can be entirely abstract but if you want to make a model of the world, say a climate model, you have to take measures and datas from the real world to feed the equations, of course. Is it a real problem here ?

"object playing an important role in" really feels like a catch all almost meaningless relationship. The question is "but what role is this ? What kind of importance" ? (oh, it's too hard and philosophical, so we gave up). If you can link almost anything to almost anything it's probably a bad idea, I think we should avoid such properties. We have a couple of them like facet of (P1269) that people sometimes use when they don't know what to use. I think it's not really good because we don't then make the effort of asking ourselve if there is a more precise and purposeful relationship that could be created.

To take the example of a climate model and the earth climate "has a role in modeling" is really an understatement. "simulates" would be a much better choice. author TomT0m / talk page 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have a real problem with this, because space-time and gravitation do not play the same role in (general) relativity theory. Would you say that Newton's theory modelizes space (or time for that matter) ? Space and time (or later space-time) is a constituent/a fundamental element of the theory, but the theory does not modelize (or theoretize or simulates or ... whatever is your philosophical viewpoint on the issue) it. A climate model modelizes the earth climate, but neither the earth nor the PDEs at the basis of the model (if it is a model with PDEs). Perhaps we need indeed two properties, something like "modelizes" (gravition, earth climate etc) and something like "is a constituent of" or "a constitutive element of" or something of the kind (space-time, PDE, ...). It would be nice to have some other inputs, would not it ? Cgolds (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/model for (2)

model for and its inverse property modeled by

Motivation

discussion

Navigation menu

Search