Wikidata:Property proposal/viability on surface

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

viability on surface

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Withdrawn
Descriptiontime of viability of this biological entity on the surface of a given material
Data typeItem
Domainitem; preferably strains such as SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) but might apply to other items such as HIV (Q15787)
Allowed valuessubclass of material (Q214609)
Example 1SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) --> plastic (Q11474) duration (P2047) 3 days
Example 2SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) --> steel (Q11427) duration (P2047) 3 days
Example 3SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) --> cardboard (Q389782) duration (P2047) 1 day
Example 4SARS-CoV-2 (Q82069695) --> copper (Q753) duration (P2047) 4 hours
SourceAll examples are referenced by [1]
Planned useImmediate use for SARS-CoV-2. Long term use for all viruses for which this data is available.
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)

Motivation

[edit]

This is an important information about viruses and other pathogenic entities. It is something that is on Wikipedia (i.e. it is of encyclopedic interest) and I believe we currently do not have any ways of modeling that on Wikidata.

Any suggestions of how to better model it are super welcome. TiagoLubiana (talk) 18:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Discussion

[edit]
TiagoLubiana 01:35, 16 March 2020 Daniel Mietchen 01:42, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jodi.a.schneider 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Chchowmein 02:45, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dhx1 03:38, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Konrad Foerstner 06:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Netha Hussain 06:19, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bodhisattwa 06:56, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neo-Jay 07:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
John Samuel 07:31, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KlaudiuMihaila 07:53, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Salgo60 09:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andrawaag 10:12, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whidou 10:16, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blue Rasberry 15:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TJMSmith 16:15, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Egon Willighagen 16:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nehaoua 20:32, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Mabbett (UTC)
Peter Murray-Rust 00:00, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kasyap 02:45, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Denny 16:21, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kwj2772 16:56, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joalpe 22:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Finn Årup Nielsen fnielsen) 10:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Skim 11:45, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SCIdude 15:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evolution and evolvability 01:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) 07:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mlemusrojas 15:30, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yupik 20:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Csisc 23:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OAnick 10:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gnoeee 12:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jjkoehorst 14:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So9q 08:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nandana 14:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addshore 15:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Librarian lena 18:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jelabra 19:19, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlexanderPico 23:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Higa4 02:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
JoranL 19:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alejgh 11:04, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will (Wiki Ed)) 17:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ranjithsiji 04:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AntoineLogean 07:35, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hannolans 17:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Farmbrough 21:15, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ecritures 21:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject COVID-19

 Question I like the idea, but what are the allowed values of this property? subclass of (P279) material (Q214609)? --SilentSpike (talk) 16:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SilentSpike: That is a very good question. subclass of (P279) material (Q214609) are for sure inside the allowed values. cardboard (Q389782) is a subclass of (P279) paper (Q11472) that is a subclass of (P279) material (Q16829513) that is a subclass of (P279) material (Q214609), so subclasses of subclasses also count. A similar situation happens for alloy (Q37756). So yes. Unless an exception appears in the future, the values should be subclass of (P279)* material (Q214609). TiagoLubiana (talk) 17:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Support With that defined, I think this is a reasonable and valuable proposal. Have updated with the constraint. --SilentSpike (talk) 17:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retracting my support (for now) based on further comments. I like the idea behind this proposal, but see that it needs some more development. --SilentSpike (talk) 12:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Besides the surface material, the viability depends on some other parameters, e.g. temperature(s), humidity, surface microstructure, mode of pathogen delivery, or the presence of fluxes (people, water, air etc.). So we might need some structure around potential qualifiers. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I don't think the reference given above is a reliable one for an unqualified statement. --- Jura 00:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Good comments. I am actually trying to reproduce something that is widely regarded as "knowledge". It is stated even in the SARS-CoV-2 Wikipedia page. I totally agree that it would require qualifiers to achieve an ideal degree of precision. But still, if it is on Wikipedia, shouldn't it be on Wikidata? (It is an actual question). I also used the very same reference as in Wikipedia. If it should not be on Wikipedia, then the solution is removing it from the Wikipedia side instead of adding it here, I guess.TiagoLubiana (talk) 22:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Wikidata, the question is in general only what rank to use. Once in a while, we have Wikipedia editors deleting statements or references that don't meet some enwiki standard. As I don't edit enwiki, I'd find it problematic to do the same myself there.
    For the above, from the summary I was given, adding qualifiers to indicate that it's a lab experiment, the mode is aerosol (likely not be the most frequent), that the cardboard results were inconsistent (if I recall that correctly). Apparently, some might also note that it's a lab experiment published in journal for clinical studies .. Adding other papers that conclude longer (or shorter) periods could help. --- Jura 11:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and perhaps

I was not able to find a qualifier to indicate surface microstructure, mode of delivery, or fluxes. Or the initial viral levels, which influences directly the time of detectability. I see that they would be important. On the other hand, the article has been cited a few hundred times, and its results are reported frequently without even the basic constraints of temperature and air humidity. An option to address these limitations would be to create a new qualifer similar to valid in place (P3005) and valid in period (P1264) in the likes of valid for experiment described in, and then the item for reference article. This is conceptually different of a reference, as it is not the source of a statement, but a qualification of scope. What do you think? TiagoLubiana (talk) 02:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • How comparable are the standards for viability over multiple different papers? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 00:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ChristianKl: This is a hard question, and would require a systematic review. Usually they just report like "the virus survives for n hours" (ex: [2] [3] [4]. These reports are widely cited, both in the cientific as well as in the popular media [5] and Wikipedia [6]. In Wikidata, we can at least register an expression of concern of the preciseness of such reporting. Would changing the name to "reported survival time on surface" help? Again, I agree this is not precise, but as the sources apparently do not care about that, it is hard for Wikidata to change this (at least now). TiagoLubiana (talk) 13:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"withdrawn" in that case. Anyways, I still think this is needed. --- Jura 18:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jura1: I totally agree TiagoLubiana (talk) 19:33, 8 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/viability_on_surface&oldid=1304244159"