Open main menu

Property talk:P6243

Active discussions

Documentation

digital representation of
this is a faithful digitized representation of the indicated object or work. For use on Commons MediaInfo entities.
  Value type “physical object (Q223557), item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264): 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 physical object (Q223557), item of collection or exhibition (Q18593264) (or a subclass thereof). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6243#Value type Q223557, Q18593264, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
  Allowed entity types are Wikibase property (Q29934218), Wikibase MediaInfo (Q59712033): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6243#allowed entity types, SPARQL (new)

Old deletion discussionEdit

Artwork only?Edit

The current description implies that only artworks are in scope for this property, but I see no reason why it couldn't be used for any type of object or work in a collection. Any objections to me changing the description to reflect that? Dominic (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Can you provide a few samples before doing so? I think the important part of the description is "2D". --- Jura 12:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
    • I can imagine for example non-artwork documents (books, laws etc.). There are many scans in Commons, and it can be very useful to connect them to the Wikidata items so that if one wants to process them in Wikisource (using the ProofreadPage extension), they’re easier to be found. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
      • I totally think this property should be applicable to faithful representations (digital surrogates) of all kinds of two-dimensional documents in the broadest sense: maps, prints, drawings, pages of books, manuscripts, archival documents, etc. Spinster 💬 17:01, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
        I definitely agree that this should be applicable to the types of 2D objects Spinster lists above. I would however also suggest that it could apply in the case of faithful 3D scans of objects (at least in the long run when 3D files on Commons support textures). [Yes copyrights differ in this situation but I'm also suggesting that that isn't what the property is trying to communicate, but lets keep that discussion in the section below] /Lokal_Profil 20:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
        • This item is not, or should not be related to copyright. 3D, audio and movies (actualle without sounds those are 2D works) should also be in scope. Regarding prints, it should to my believe link to the qid of that individual copy of that print as available in that archive. --Hannolans (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
I have updated the description per this discussion, since it seemed no one had an objection. Dominic (talk) 16:34, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Only for copyrightEdit

@Jura1: Following [1], [2], [3], can I point you to Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2019/Properties/1#digital_representation_of_(P6243), which I withdrew when @Multichill: pointed out that this properly was for copyright status. If it's not just for copyright status, it duplicates depicts (P180) - and in that case I'm happy to restart the deletion discussion if you want. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

  • Thanks, but if it's just meant for the copyright status, it should be called accordingly. I don't think this is the scope planned at Wikidata:Property proposal/Digital representation of. As you closed the discussion early, I'm not really convinced people subscribed to that point of view either. --- Jura 19:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: As we explained at the time, this is a more specific sub-class of that property. It's the same reason we have both P31 and P527. I appreciate that you withdrew it on mistaken grounds, but that doesn't mean your assertion that started the discussion was correct. If you really feel this strongly, you should re-open the discussion (and we'll hopefully convince you that you're wrong, or at least out-mass you). James F. (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe c:Template:Artwork is the better comparison. Obviously, it can include copyright info. Is there some related discussion on Commons that would require the addition to the description? --- Jura 07:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
    @Jura1: c:Template:Artwork would naturally use depicts (P180), this property isn't needed for that template. c:Template:PD-Art is the example I was pointed to, which is entirely copyright-based. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:05, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    • c:Template:Artwork already uses P6243 to get values for author, references, name, .. I'm currently working on creating items for such artworks --- Jura 20:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
    I'd definitely suggest that limiting the scope of this Property to "only for copyright" would be unfortunate. It blurs the line of WHAT we are trying to say with the Property with WHY we are saying it. If the motivation is to have a Property that says "no new copyright in jurisdictions that require creativity" then that would probably be better served by something like copyright status (P6216) public domain (Q19652) / applies to part (P518) Digital reproduction (Q5276149) / determination method (P459) no copyright because faithful reproduction without creativity (not necessarily those properties but that general idea). But that was not what either the original proposal nor the deletion request discussion suggested was the purpose of the Property. /Lokal_Profil 20:21, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
  • OK, I've posted Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#digital_representation_of_(P6243). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:36, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
  • On Commons we have many templates that have wikidata field indicating an item for depicted object, be it a painting, drawing, book, sculpture, archaeological artifact, famous photograph, building, ship, etc. This is very different than depicts. A painting can depict several people and dozen objects, but should be linked to a single item for specific painting. Since some paintings might have very large number of depict statements it is often not possible to load entities for all of them to maybe find one for the painting item. The copyright issue is definitely important, but it is not the only purpose. My main issue with P6243 is that the description seems to exclude sculptures, books, artifact and other 3D objects. I do not think we need another property for storing the link the depicted 3D object. --Jarekt (talk) 05:09, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
If I read the discussion Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2019/Properties/1#Property:P6243 the general outcome was that we should split United States-copyright situation of the photo and digital representation of a work. I will alter the desription. --Hannolans (talk) 12:36, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

FramesEdit

 
Starry Night Painting

Currently there is a painting with a picture frame (The Starry Night (Q45585)) in the examples a digital representation. That is not a good example. The frame does have it's own copyright status and has his own author. It is a collage of two art objects and it also makes the work 3D. --Hannolans (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

You're quire right. I've been bold, and removed it as an example.
digital representation of (P6243) should only be used if an image shows the whole of an 2D art object, all of it, faithfully, directly square-on, and nothing but the 2D art object (ie no frame, no adjacent wall, no surrounding gallery, no other work, etc). Jheald (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's something to discuss on Commons. Here you might just get some people saying one thing and doing another thing. From a Wikidata perspective, some stuff around shouldn't be a problem, but partial reproduction would seem odd. --- Jura 16:41, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Return to "P6243" page.