Some properties are only applicable to specific type of taxon, e.g.
Also some properties are only applicable to instances of specific type of taxon, e.g.
We probably need two new types of relation.
I can kind of see the need for a “parent taxon” relation, but what’s the second new type of relation? Your “date of birth” example sounds like a regular type constraint to me.
Currently P569 have type=human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074), dog (Q144), horse (Q726), cat (Q146), giant panda (Q33602), gorilla (Q36611), chimpanzee (Q80174), elephant (Q7378), Pan troglodytes (Q4126704), polar bear (Q33609), killer whale (Q26843), American alligator (Q193327), Bonobo (Q19537), Ursus arctos (Q36341), Asian elephant (Q133006), orangutan (Q41050), Kodiak bear (Q237260), hippopotamus (Q34505), this is unmanageable if more values are added.
P570 have type=human (Q5), fictional character (Q95074), animal (Q729), which does not work as dog and cat is not subclass of animal but subtaxon of animal.
Hm, but requiring “instance of taxon” would be too broad because it also covers non-animal taxa, is that the problem?
Honestly, this is a community problem. They need to deprecate parent taxon in favor of P279, but there are a bare handful of editors who think the two relations are distinct from one another.