Wikidata:Property proposal/translation of

translation of edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Done: translation of (P9745) (Talk and documentation)

Description	the work that this translation is translated from
Represents	translation (Q7553)
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Allowed values	creative work (Q17537576)
Example 1	Frankenstein, ou le Prométhée moderne (Q51434118) → Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus (Q150827)
Example 2	TT (Japanese version) (Q107447975) → TT (Q28581210)
Example 3	De kleine prins (Q29608401) → The Little Prince (Q25338)
Source	https://schema.org/translationOfWork
Planned use	Convert items using has edition or translation (P747) and edition or translation of (P629) to this property
See also	edition or translation of (P629)
Wikidata project	Books

Motivation edit

Currently, translations are put in the has edition or translation (P747) and edition or translation of (P629) properties, which can make these statements very convoluted. It would be nice to have a dedicated property for translations specifically, as schema.org has.

This would be useful not only to books, but also songs that have translated versions.

Approving this would also change has edition or translation (P747) and edition or translation of (P629) to "has edition" and "edition of".

WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

Lectrician1 (talk) 20:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

In the description it’s not a good idea to refer to both the original work and a translation as works. A translation is a FRBR and IFLA-LRM “expression” of a work. Maybe, if we don’t want to use the word “expression”, revise the description to “the work that this translation is translated from” or something like that. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk • contribs) at 20:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Done --Lectrician1 (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think the motivation is clear enough to me and this is a very welcomed untangling of the previous 2 properties and look forward to that cleanup if it can be determined which are a "translation" and which are "an edition". Knowing the difference might get fuzzy on some? Regarding FRBR, I think we can put FRBR or "what is an expression of a work" aside from this discussion so that this proposed property can be used well around the world. --Thadguidry (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support Strongly support cleaning this up - The Dyer's Handbook: Memoirs of an 18th-Century Master Colourist (Q106917710) is an example of problems with our current approach, where the English translation of a French work has multiple editions, and we get constraint violations like "An entity should not have statements for both edition or translation of and has edition or translation" when that is exactly the real-world situation - the item is a translation of the French work and has multiple editions in English. - PKM (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectrician1, Thadguidry, PKM: Done --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 23:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Tinker Bell: This is a bad move as it was NEVER proposed to the Wikidata Books project and in fact the most recent discussions there were that this was not where we were progressing. The discussion that took place years ago about how to do this, and this was shot down at that time. Can I ask that you please delete the property and put a proper discussion at Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books so that the project can give you their feedback and work out how it would go back and address such a matter. Thanks

It is also a problematic implementation due to there being no reverse property which currently exists "has edition".

@Lectrician1: I find the above ping here to a group and no notification to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books quite tawdry in execution of reasonable and polite operating process. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

further there is has edition or translation (P747) and version, edition or translation (Q3331189) that are heavily in play here, and this new property doesn't fit well, nor is there a plan for it to fit. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

“

Approving this would also change has edition or translation (P747) and edition or translation of (P629) to "has edition" and "edition of".

”

Comment one cannot just change the context of an existing property like was done. I have reverted. The correct process would be the creation of 2 new properties that would take the existing links and through maintenance split them. By such a reckless change, we have all these translations that were properly linked, now incorrectly linked, not notified to the Wikisources, and unable to be maintained and even known to go looking for them. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@billinghurst:

"I find the above ping here to a group and no notification to Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books"

I have been proposing multiple properties over the past week that effect versions and translations and I had to ping projects multiple times, some which would not go through because I was mentioning too many people. Sorry about that.

"version, edition, or translation (Q3331189) that are heavily in play here, and this new property doesn't fit well, nor is there a plan for it to fit"

I mean, it could still fit. Making a plan and changing the data model a bit could make it fit better.

"The correct process would be the creation of 2 new properties that would take the existing links and through maintenance split them."

What do we do in the case of the proposal in which no inverse property was proposed because most people do not want inverse properties anymore? Lectrician1 (talk) 13:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The PLANNING on what to do for properties under the stewardship of a project is best undertaken by the project in a holistic consideration, that was the purpose of the projects. Do you know how many tens to hundred of thousands works are impacted by such a change at the Wikisources? Multiple brains need to be at work here, and the creation of an isolated property is simply problematic. It should be undo now, before it; and then go back to the drawing board. If it is that important then it can have the time taken, there is no urgent nor imperative need for this property. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=translations+versions&prefix=Wikidata+talk%3AWikiProject+Books&fulltext=Search+in+this+page+hierarchy&fulltext=Search&ns0=1&ns4=1&ns12=1&ns120=1&ns122=1 gives some clue to the discussions over 8 years about this; the approaches taken and why we are here with the current system. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I suggest this on WP Books last time we discussed the topic? --- Jura 13:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and what was the outcome of that discussion? Was the outcome to create the property? No — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- As it sometimes happens with discussions on WP Books, it didn't actually go anywhere. The discussion about actually creating a property is elsewhere, i.e. here. --- Jura 14:04, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  Just because a conversation happens and doesn't end at the point that you wanted, could actually mean that it wasn't a good idea. It could mean that your argument was under-developed. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

---

Re- WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

What are the pros and cons of having a separate translation property?

I proposed it because:

I saw how schema.org has separate properties for editions, translations, and releases (music releases, the area I actually specialize in) and I wanted to create a unifying system on Wikidata that matches it. From my experience with music and book releases, it makes sense.
I've seen literary work items before that have a lot of editions and translations mixed together and I thought a property would be nice. I also thought it would work well for translated songs too.

I actually went into proposing this property without any knowledge of the prior discussions of having a separate property.

Now that I have read through them, it seems like the main argument is that libraries and in-general with books, editions and translations are treated as the same thing. Is this correct. What other reasons are there?

I also would like to know why has edition or translation (P747) and edition or translation of (P629) have constraints that make them not able to be placed with one another. It seems like this conflict is part of the reason why people are supporting this property.

I'm currently pretty neutral at the moment about whether this property should exist or as I understand and support both sides of the argument. I would like for the community to work together and come up with a solution, without leaving User:Jura1 hanging like last time.

Thoughts Wikiproject Books?

--Lectrician1 (talk) 00:16, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Annnnnddd the ping didn't go through. Lectrician1 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come on now. Relying on a ping is the most facile argument. Go to the talk page and make your argument. Put it on the record in a clear space that people are watching. Watchlists are regularly more live than a ping. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nutshell of the argument that was put forward was that there is one concept for a literary work and everything hangs of it, be it an edition or a translation. I know that I proposed that a translation became a new work level item and in itself had editions was not accepted as a reasonable approach to undertake, and seen as too difficult within WD. The consensus position was what we have. I am not an expert in this whole space but it seems to be working, and until there is a complete plan for how translations work I believe that the status quo should be maintained.

Jura was not left hanging. I saw it that Jura did not put forward a compelling argument and schema for change. There is a difference. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@billinghurst: My question about why has edition or translation (P747) and edition or translation of (P629) can't be placed together without conflict wasn't answered. Do you know why? Lectrician1 (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectrician1: If a translation is based on a work, not an edition, then the constraints are in place to flag that. Otherwise, look in the archives of the talk page of the project for the detailed conversations. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested the deletion of this property as I believe its creation is premature and the plan for use is undeveloped and will cause splintering of data without clear plans for implementation and use. I presume that it can be undeleted if there is a later decision to use it and the plan exists for its use. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this discussion now be taking place on the property discussion page https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P9745 rather than here? I do not find the arguments against have a specific property for translation of very persuasive. The library community's cataloging standards currently in use do have specific translation properties, among others. For example in RDA we have is translation of, is dubbed version of, is free translation of, and also unconstrained property versions of the same: is translation of, is dubbed version of, is free translation of. Other kinds of editions have their own separate properties, e.g. is revision of and the unconstrained version is revision of. If we want to more explicitly express the specific nature of the relationship of one work to another or one expression to another, we need specific properties for them. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@UWashPrincipalCataloger: I don't have a principled issue about the property itself. I have an issue that it is created as a standalone without consideration for its ecosystem, and outside of the project where people had previously discussed it. I bow down before people like yourself who can sort out all this stuff, I am a simple user who is needing to get it to work, and all I see is half-pregnant. I would love for someone knowledgeable like yourself to be able to lay it out before the project. I'll do what works and is not overtly complex. => reasonable and practicable. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]