Wikidata:Property proposal/in defining formula

Description	symbol used for this in defining formula
Data type	Mathematical expression
Domain	items with defining formula (P2534), calculated from (P4934)
Allowed values	part of value of defining formula (P2534)
Example 1	f-number (Q862169) calculated from (P4934) focal length (Q193540) → ${f}$
Example 2	f-number (Q862169) calculated from (P4934) diameter of the entrance pupil (Q63572027) → ${D}$
Example 3	f-number (Q862169) → $N$
Example 4	note for samples 1/2/3: f-number (Q862169) has defining formula (P2534) $N={\frac {f}{D}}$
Expected completeness	eventually complete when P4934 can be defined
See also	defining formula (P2534), calculated from (P4934)

Seems to be missing information about P2534 (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 10:31, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To bo honest, I do not really understand the proposal. How does it compare to the has part annotations that are used for example in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q35875?--Physikerwelt (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure. Use of has part(s) (P527) on items with defining formula (P2534) seems pretty random. There are currently 97 items on [1]: they don't appear to be structured. It might work on one or the other item when reading the statement 1-by-1 and knowing in advance what to look for. Also, the proposal might not be suitable for every item about physics. --- Jura 11:30, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb: I just noticed your comment on Property_talk:P416 once more. Maybe you were looking for something in the same direction. --- Jura 04:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb: I don't think it's currently defined as being used that way nor does it appear to be particularly structured to do so. Also, I think it's better to use the same format/datatype. --- Jura 16:28, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]