Property talk:P5323

Documentation

• Start a query
• Current uses
• Statistics by class
• List of values
• List of qualifiers
• Count

attested in
document or corpus where the lemma or form of a Lexeme entity, word or name is used, but not described

Represents	document (Q49848)
Data type	Item
Example	Ronny (Q117599) → frequency of first names in the Netherlands, 2010 (Q21644845) Bonifaz (Q205696) → Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich (Q665807) no label (L239133) → Post- och Inrikes Tidningar (Q1756598) no label (L59249) → Anmärckningar wid swenska post-tidningarne (Q110973375)
See also	usage example (P5831), first attested from (P6684), attested as (P7855)
Lists	Items with the most statements of this property Count of items by number of statements (chart) Items with the most statements Items with the fewest statements Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart) Items with the most sitelinks Items with the most sitelinks, but no link to one Wikipedia (sample: Welsh Wikipedia, cywiki) Items with the fewest sitelinks Most linked wikis Items with the most identifier properties By value of property Most statements Fewest statements Most sitelinks Most linked wikis Total of sitelinks on items Most identifiers Fewest identifiers Items with no other statements Most recently created items Items with novalue claims Items with unknown value claims Usage history (total) Usage history (main statement) Chart by item creation date Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P5323 Database reports/Constraint violations/P5323 Map Random list
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 171,552 Main statement 170,953 99.7% of uses Qualifier 475 0.3% of uses Reference 124 <0.1% of uses
Search for values

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Value type “document (Q49848), work (Q386724)”: 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 document (Q49848), work (Q386724) (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/P5323#Value type Q49848, Q386724, SPARQL

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/P5323#Scope, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase lexeme (Q51885771), Wikibase form (Q54285143), Wikibase item (Q29934200), Wikibase sense (Q54285715): 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/P5323#Entity types

Conflicts with “instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410)”: this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (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/P5323#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL

Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as qualifier (Q54828449), as reference (Q54828450): 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/P5323#Scope, SPARQL

Frequency of first names > 100000 (in a country) and not the top 10
(Help)
Violations query: SELECT ?item ?attestedIn ?date ?number ?order { ?item p:P5323 [ps:P5323 ?attestedIn; pq:P1114 ?number; pq:P1545 ?order; ]. FILTER (?number > 100000 && ?order > 10). ?attestedIn wdt:P585 ?date. }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P5323#Frequency of first names > 100000 (in a country) and not the top 10

Use outside lexemes

See discussion. --Epìdosis 08:22, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi, jumping from a discussion on Epidosis' talk page, I disagree on the use of attested in (P5323) to say that a concept other than a written succession of letters (be it Lexemes or names, as the property examples showcase) is present in a publication. I find that is way too generic and that it just opens rooms to every single item beeing buried in thousand of statements whose individual value would be really hard to assess. I believe that this kind of named entity recognition should be done on the text itself, outside of Wikidata. Even if my view should not prevail however, I also disagree on negates property (P11317)not found in (P9660) as the scope of attested in (P5323) and not found in (P9660) is vastly different. If we allow the use outside of lexeme for P5323, any publication that merely mention the concept could be used. On the contrary, P9660's use is limited to "publication or database relevant to the topic that would generally include similar subjects", i.e. not every publication. The correct negation should be described by source (P1343), not P5323. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 11:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: in fact I mostly agree with your argument: the use of this property for whichever P5323 for whichever work citing whichever thing could potentially lead to a vast amount of not-so-useful or plainly useless statements flooding items; in fact my choice for the broadening of the scope of this property was mainly motivated by the fact that is seemed the most reasonable solution and there weren't objections (in fact, the discussion wasn't much participated, despite pinging the related WikiProject).

I would then pose two questions: 1) do we think that the datum "work X cites entity Y" could be relevant for Wikidata if we limit the range of possible works to certain types of works, e.g. to reference work (Q13136) and its subclasses, or that this datum is always not relevant (= out of scope) for Wikidata? 2.1) if the datum "work X cites entity Y" is relevant in some cases, should it be entered through this property or through another one?) 2.2) if the datum "work X cites entity Y" is never relevant, should the data already entered be plainly deleted? As of now, my answers would be that 1) in certain cases, the datum could be relevant and 2.1) as of now I don't see better alternatives than this property to keep it. BTW, looking into not found in (P9660) the restriction "publication or database relevant to the topic" is encoded in the descriptions but not in the costraints, so doing the same thing here would be very easy. But I'm not fully sure and I'm interested in hearing other opinions, hoping this discussion could be more participated than the previous :) --Epìdosis 12:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I also disagree. The intent of the property is to document a specific dictionary form or a specific word. So , it might be used to document "Gaius" as a Latin nominative form, but it would only apply to that word (lexeme), not to a specific referent (individual). The cited source of the attribution must therefore be an edition or an instance of a document, and never a "work". Bending this property to apply to both spellings and to referents would conflate two entirely different functions. This property is intended to attest the existence of "unicorns" (the word), not to attest the existence of unicorns (mythical animal). And trying to make this attest the existence of a human, when it is meant to attest a specific word, in a specific spelling, in a specific language, conflates two very different functions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: since you think that the scope of this property should not have been broadened, could you express your opinion about the data (about 2k statements, https://w.wiki/7Jgt) which were entered in the period in which the scope had been broadened according to the aforementioned discussion? Specifically, do you think that A) they should be moved to another existing property or B) they should be moved to a new property or 3) they should be deleted? Thanks, --Epìdosis 17:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not know whether there is a suitable existing property, so I cannot fully answer that question. If there is a suitable existing property, then they should be switched to that property. If not, they should be removed. If there is not a suitable property, one could be proposed, but as far as I am aware, information documenting facts are placed as references under the appropriate property, not as properties themselves. And without knowing exactly what is being attested with these statements, I can neither identify a suitable property nor offer a proposal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Mare Magnum is a bibliography; it is a list of publications concerning different topics; thus, the current uses (which, as said before, are compliant to the result of the aforementioned discussion) mean that "at f. NUMBER of volume NUMBER of Mare Magnum the person X is cited (as author or curator or printer of a certain publication)". On the basis of this explanation, could you identify a suitable property or offer a proposal? Thanks, --Epìdosis 17:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Then it's not a property, but a reference. This is support for occupation (P106) writer (Q36180) on a data item for a human, and should be listed as a supporting reference, not a property. It can also be placed on a data item for a literary work as a reference supporting the authorship of the work, as a reference under author (P50). A listing in a bibliography is not a property of the human, but rather a reference supporting a specific bit of information about that person or their work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

So these would be references with stated in (P248)SOURCE. It can be a viable solution. @Jahl de Vautban, Bluerasberry, PKM: do you agree with this solution or would you suggest to propose a new property instead? I would like to reach some consensus on how to transform the data, in order to avoid a third discussion requesting a further rearrangement :) --Epìdosis 11:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Epìdosis: it makes senses, I agree with the use of bibliographies as references. Though I still think that a property "is a bibliography of" would be worthwile. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 12:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Jahl de Vautban: ok. Considering the existence of bibliography (P8625), do you mean a property like "cited by bibliography", right? I can propose it. --Epìdosis 12:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Epìdosis: no I actually meant the inverse property of bibliography (P8625) (as it probably makes more sense in that direction), specifically for articles or books that are bibliographies, but on second thoughts genre (P136)bibliography (Q1631107) with main subject (P921) might be a very acceptable alternative without the need of a dedicated property. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, @Jahl de Vautban:. Yes, I agree that genre (P136)bibliography (Q1631107) + main subject (P921) is probably the best solution for bibliographies regarding a certain theme. So, for the values of Mare Magnum presently under this property, do you think that the best solution is moving them to references of occupation (P106), right? Just to be sure before starting to prepare the move. --Epìdosis 18:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Epìdosis: best I don't know, but certainly better than using P5323. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 17:51, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Dear all, after a discussion in presence with @Epìdosis, we think that P1343 could be the solution, not the best solution, but better than P5323. I know, this is the first time we are linking names with a manuscript bibliographic repository, but for the project is important to highlight (and save) the relationship between names (authors, printers, etc.) and the item's postion in the bibliography. Thank you for all your suggestions Valesonz (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)