Ontology:P203: Difference between revisions
copy or update fake Item from P213 Β |
m pass / fail |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
<dl class="wikitable hue"> | <dl class="wikitable hue"> | ||
{{HueRoster|P={{Ontology:P203}}| field value |OP1=test passed| {{Ontology: | {{HueRoster|P={{Ontology:P203}}| field value |OP1=test passed| {{Ontology:P203/G}} |OP2=test failed| {{Ontology:P203/NG}} }} | ||
</dl> | </dl> | ||
Revision as of 06:54, 19 May 2025
- pronounced [P] "Dirac test"
- pronounced [P] "Dirac test"
Characteristics in draft
Properties
- item type
- label (en)
- pronounced [P] "Dirac test"
- alias (en)
- Is this description or argument unnecessarily opaque for its intended educational level?
- Is this description or argument unnecessarily opaque even to educated people?
- "Dirac test" (communication question 03)
- QID references
- P200 rating / communication rating level
- color swatch references
- quantum mechanics
- Property data type
- item
- instance of
- communication rating level
Prototype notes
- Is this description or argument unnecessarily opaque for its intended educational level? ("Dirac test")
- A question for judging videos literally aimed at physics professors. It's possible for a scientific hypothesis to be aimed at a very high level and still be unintelligible to highly educated people who are new to the field.
- Also applies to "ontological spaghetti" where someone like Ε½iΕΎek presents a model that is completely incomprehensible to any human being at first sight.
- Would this description or argument look unnecessarily opaque to a college-educated person? ("Bachelor test")