Item talk:Q10

@Yurik:: I disagree that Q10 (OSM concept) is a P3 (subclass of) Q10 (OSM concept). It is a P3 (subclass of) (concept), for which we do not have an item in this wiki (yet?). --YjM (talk) 23:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

YjM, true, but i don't think its worth creating - we could just rename OSM concept into a concept - same difference :) I don't think there is a practical reason to establish a complex "proper" hierarchy in OSM data items in the same way we do in Wikidata - rather I would like to concentrate on the OSM goals - structured storage of OSM-related things like keys, values, presets, validation rules, etc. But if you feel very strongly about it, sure, go ahead and create another item. --Yurik (talk) 01:35, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yurik: I was more thinking about removing this statement, rather then creating top-level items, if you wouldn't mind. I don't really feel comfortable about having cycles of this kind in the ontology... --YjM (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

YjM, the only real reason I had it there is to prevent any type of data validation scripts/queries from showing a warning for Q10. If a novice user adds a new item, they could forget to add instance-of for Q10. This is really not a big deal, so feel free to remove too.

BTW, on an unrelated note, there is no need to add labels for languages other than English for keys/tags if they are identical to English. See label description. Thx! --Yurik (talk) 23:07, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

@Yurik: If there is a live use-case for having the data being modeled in this manner, I am ok with it. We will see in the future, if there won't be some semantic reasoners which will die in such cycles. We can re-discuss it then.

As of the second thing: thanks for pointing to that! I haven't read the Data items page thoroughly and expected the rules to be the same as in Wikidata. --YjM (talk) 13:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)