Property talk:P1963

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Push-f in topic English label

Documentation

properties for this type
when this subject is used as object of “instance of”, the following properties normally apply
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Value type “Wikidata property (Q18616576): This property should use items as value that contain property “instance of (P31)”. On these, the value for instance of (P31) should be an item that uses subclass of (P279) with value Wikidata property (Q18616576) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1963#Value type Q18616576, SPARQL
Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1963#Entity types
Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1963#Scope, SPARQL
Item “subclass of (P279): Items with this property should also have “subclass of (P279)”. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1963#Item P279, search, SPARQL
 
Check "has quality" values
Values of the has characteristic (P1552) qualifier should be instances of status of property in properties for this type (Q84597428) (Help)
Violations query: SELECT ?item ?value { ?item p:P1963/pq:P1552 ?value . MINUS {?value wdt:P31 wd:Q84597428} } LIMIT 100
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1963#Check "has quality" values
 
Properties should be allowed to be used in main statements
Properties that don't have property constraint (P2302)property scope constraint (Q53869507)property scope (P5314)as main value (Q54828448) should not be used as a value for this property (Help)
Violations query: SELECT ?item ?st ?property { ?item p:P1963 ?st . ?st ps:P1963 ?property . FILTER(EXISTS{?property wdt:P2302 wd:Q53869507} && !EXISTS{?property p:P2302 [ps:P2302 wd:Q53869507; pq:P5314 wd:Q54828448]}) }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1963#Properties should be allowed to be used in main statements

Deprecated rank edit

@‎Viapicante: What's the meaning of statements with "deprecated rank" on Q11424? [1]. film script (P3816) seems suitable for items that are instance of (P31)=film (Q11424). It was actually proposed for such items.
--- Jura 21:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Properties with item-datatype as value edit

The proposal seems to be for properties with item datatype. Maybe we should include some of the others (notably quantity) where constraints on the property don't shape the instances/occupations it applies to.
--- Jura 07:33, 7 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Multi-value constraint edit

@Jura1: What's your case for adding this constraint? It seems to me given that 259 constraint violations with a total of 776 of uses the constraint doesn't reflect the practice of how the property is used. ChristianKl10:11, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Jura1: While I agree that most items should have more then two statements, this property isn't for all statements that could pausibly be used but only for those that apply in the normal case. Furthermore, while every subclass of nerve (Q9620) should have Uberon values, that information is better stored further up the chain in anatomical structure (Q4936952). ChristianKl11:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
Even in a normal case, I think most items should have at least three statements that are not identifiers. If it's the exclamation mark that bothers you, we can change it to suggestion constraint (Q62026391). --- Jura 11:09, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Jura1, ChristianKl: I agree with ChristianKl, the multi-value constraint doesn't make any sense for this property. The vast majority of items in Wikidata have no "properties for this type" statements. Why would we assume that once we add one property for a type that we would also have a second that we could add?? We should should remove this constraint so that it doesn't confuse editors. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 03:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I don't see how it's relevant that Wikidata items have no P1963 statements. Maybe you don't understand what the property or the constraint is for.
Do you have a sample where and how the constraint confused you? --- Jura 08:41, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I'm not confused about how it works. If you add one statement with the properties for this type (P1963) property, then the multi-value constraint requires/suggests that you add at least one more. Does this match your understanding of the multivalue constraint? For instance mathematical group (Q83478) has the statement mathematical group (Q83478)properties for this type (P1963)group cardinality (P1164) which causes a multi-value constraint violation, but currently there are not any other properties that apply specifically to mathematical groups, so the constraint violation is erroneous. As ChristianKl mention at the start of this thread, there are hundreds of such cases, which indicates the constraint is misused. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 09:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Seems that even P1164 isn't really used on that type.
Do we have couple of meaningful items of that type to determine what the properties should be?
Some I find seemt to have mainly "named after" and "studied by". --- Jura 11:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
You are right that the properties "named after" and "studied by" appear on many mathematical groups, but the same can be said for hundreds of types of mathematical items---we certainly don't want to add properties for this type (P1963)"named after" to every one! P1963 should be placed only on the broadest class possible rather than on each and every subclass. Right now there are no other properties that fit that criteria for groups, so we get a multivale constraint violation. There are also several hundred other examples listed in the constraint violations: [2]. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 20:40, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I think we should remove the suggestion for P1164 as it isn't used. We don't remove contraints merely because we don't want to edit items. --- Jura 23:32, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Jura1, please you clarify what you mean: Do you mean that we should remove the statement mathematical group (Q83478)properties for this type (P1963)group cardinality (P1164)? That is not the right way to fix that constraint violation---the property was literally designed to be a property for groups. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 07:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, that is beside the point. We are discussing whether P1963 should have a multi-value constraint. If I understand your comments above correctly, it sounds like you want this constraint in order to suggest that every item has at least two statements. Is it clear that the multivalue constraint on P1963 means that there must be at least two 'P1963 statements on an item (or none)? The constraint doesn't have anything to do with the total number of statements on an item, only P1963 statements. The-erinaceous-one (talk) 07:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
I removed the multi-value constraint because there were no more objections and it serves as nothing but noise (it basically tells editors, "more is better!" but that's not helpful feedback). The-erinaceous-one (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Contraint for missing Wikidata property example (P1855) edit

@Jura1: Maybe you can assist with a question I have. Wikidata property for authority control (Q18614948) shows that many properties raise warning for missing Wikidata property example (P1855). Many of them instead have Wikidata property example for properties (P2271) that I think fill the same purpose. Is there a way to make the constraint into "either this or that" or would it work to have a generic superclass "property examples" and create a constraint that ask for examples but doesn't explicitly define which format?

From another point of view I might suggest that the constraint is removed from here and instead set on a super class. Isn't the requirement to have examples a part of the Wikidata property for properties (Q22582645), rather than on usage of properties for this type (P1963)? Is it possible to override inherited constraints? Jagulin (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

English label edit

@Push-f: The property proposal was quite clear about the name of this property being "properties for this type". You shouldn't change names of existing properties in conflict with the property proposal without seeking consensus for that. Part of the property proposal process is deciding on the name. ChristianKl12:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

@ChristianKl: Right, sorry about that I didn't realize that you were changing it back since you didn't add any edit summary.
I think the current label "properties for this type" really begs the question: "What is a type?". Do we have some formal definition for that?
--Push-f (talk) 10:50, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
We have a bunch of metaclasses that are named type like grant type (Q113749699), music release type (Q106043376), toy type (Q57663695) religion type (Q110401222) and ship type (Q2235308). Unfortuantely, we currently don't have good definitions of our upper level ontology on Wikidata. We don't even have coherent items as https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Ontology#Merging_Wikidata_instance_class_(Q21522908),_class_(Q16889133),_and_type_(Q21146257) illustrates. ChristianKl18:43, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I meant "type" in regards to the fundamental Wikibase data model ... the properties you listed are all of topic-specific data models and thus irrelevant to that question. --Push-f (talk) 12:59, 13 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Return to "P1963" page.