Wikidata:Property proposal/storage capacity (ROM)
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
storage capacity (ROM)
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | the storage capacity of a device or hard drive |
|---|---|
| Represents | read-only memory (Q160710) |
| Data type | Quantity |
| Domain | recording medium (Q193395) |
| Allowed values | byte (Q8799) and derivatives (see other property) |
| Example 1 | Huawei Mate 10 Pro (Q50283450) → 128gigabyte (Q79738) |
| Example 2 | iPhone 8 Plus (Q39598190) → 64gigabyte (Q79738) and 256gigabyte (Q79738) |
| Example 3 | Fairphone 2 (Q21000819) → 32gigabyte (Q79738) |
| See also | storage capacity (P2928),maximum size or capacity (P3559) |
Motivation
[edit]There seems to be a lot of confusion about storage capacity (P2928) as it has wrong translations in other languages and therefore some people see it as ROM and some as RAM. As storage capacity (P2928) is meant to refer to RAM. I'm hereby proposing the storage capacity of ROM. Germartin1 (talk) 08:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]
Oppose @Germartin1: Are you referring to en:Read-only memory? But your examples are not about that. In any case, I don't think storage capacity (P2928) was ever intended to be limited to RAM, it should be applicable to hard drives, tapes, CD's, any form of data storage. If you have several different storage types on one device, then add applies to part, aspect, or form (P518) qualifiers to clarify what type it refers to. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: Yes, Read-only memory. Ok thank you for clarifying it. In that case I'm proposing to seperate RAM and ROM to avoid confusion, or to put a constraint to storage capacity (P2928) to use applies to part, aspect, or form (P518) for every value. Germartin1 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- But the 64 GB in an iPhone 8 plus, for example, is not ROM, but en:Flash memory, as you will see from the infobox for en:iPhone. So technically your examples are NOT what you say you are asking for. There are so many different information storage technologies in use these days that I don't think it makes any sense to have a separate property for each one. The existing property is fine. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: You have a good point, although flash memory can be seen as a kind of ROM. In case I don't find support, would you be fine with a mandatory qualifier? Germartin1 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- I don't think I've ever heard flash referred to as ROM. It is a form of non-volatile memory - like tapes and hard drives. So if your intent is to distinguish volatile from non-volatile then perhaps that's a logical criterion here. But even a single device can have several distinct classes of each type (volatile and non-volatile) memory, so I think qualifiers to indicate the specific storage technology are the best approach here. I'm not sure about mandatory but I think the qualifier should be recommended. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: You have a good point, although flash memory can be seen as a kind of ROM. In case I don't find support, would you be fine with a mandatory qualifier? Germartin1 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
- But the 64 GB in an iPhone 8 plus, for example, is not ROM, but en:Flash memory, as you will see from the infobox for en:iPhone. So technically your examples are NOT what you say you are asking for. There are so many different information storage technologies in use these days that I don't think it makes any sense to have a separate property for each one. The existing property is fine. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: Yes, Read-only memory. Ok thank you for clarifying it. In that case I'm proposing to seperate RAM and ROM to avoid confusion, or to put a constraint to storage capacity (P2928) to use applies to part, aspect, or form (P518) for every value. Germartin1 (talk) 11:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Support better to have two properties, I guess Nepalicoi (talk) 17:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Not done Not enough support.--Micru (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2018 (UTC)