Property talk:P747
Documentation
link to an edition of this item
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Conflicts with P629, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Type Q386724, Q95107111, Q113813711, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#Value type Q3331189, Q26160672, Q63141557, Q17776219, Q104217120, Q386724, Q16363676, Q1057179, SPARQL
if [item A] has this property (has edition or translation (P747)) linked to [item B],
then [item B] should also have property “edition or translation of (P629)” linked to [item A]. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P747#inverse, SPARQL
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
Disambiguation
editNot to be confused with issue (P433) (same label in German). --Kolja21 (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Creating entites used only for this Property. How to name them?
editDid I use this the right way™? I created three entities as editions for The Time Machine: An Invention (Q627333). See:
- The Time Machine (Heinemann text) (Q14943161)
- The Time Machine (Holt text) (Q14943162)
- Die Zeitmaschine (Q14943165)
How should they be named? --Shisma (talk) 12:09, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
- Shisma, sorry the delay, normally we discuss it on Wikidata:Books task force. There are no strong preference, it is recommended to use "name of the edition (year or editor surname)", but your system is not wrong either.--Micru (talk) 09:08, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
consistency gadget
editAdded to User:JonnyJD/consistency_check.js --JonnyJD (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Perfomances
editIs this property suitable for performances (especially for musicals)? —putnik 22:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
Qualifiers: Year? plus two don't make sense
edit@Nightwish62, Micru, Yair rand: We state that allowed qualifiers are language of work or name (P407), volume (P478), and applies to part (P518). I would like for us to consider the publication date of the edition(s) as another qualifier. I request this as from the base item you are unable to tell anything about the linked edition other than its name, and sometimes its language (if added). Where somewhere like English Wikisource has multiple versions of a work (eg. The Man With the Hoe (Q7749999)) there is value in being able to see the publication year as both a query, and simply being able to disentangle the various editions from the master item. Thoughts? I do know that this could mean multiple publication dates on a page, though I am hoping that as they are qualifiers rather than primary statements that it would be self-evident for the difference.
As a separate note, the "volume" and "applies to part" qualifiers are not evident to me for how they would be used. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:22, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I don't see how adding the publication date as a qualifier instead just as a direct property of the edition item would aid in making queries. Qualifiers aren't particularly more accessible. --Yair rand (talk) 02:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
- @Yair rand: 1) the visual queue at the book level is pertinent to help one identify the correct edition to be edited (otherwise they all look the same and you need to follow each link to find the version to edit); 2) it enables a user to readily identify a progression of a work and pick the earliest/.../latest, 3) the edition item itself may not have the year of publication which would preferentially be added to the publication details of the compiled work (via the "published in" link). I have added a third example to the above example. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Nightwish62, Micru, Yair rand, Billinghurst: I've added the publication date (P577) which sound a good idea to me (I didn't undestand for queries, but for human it can clearly be useful). volume (P478) is rarely used, it seems to be used for collection and series (but it doesn't seems right to me, see BEED / Vladivostok (Q22251668) or BEED / Imperial Russian Geographical Society (Q23639405) where published in (P1433) seems better and enough). applies to part (P518) is never used and I see no use either. On a further note, Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P747 shows that a *lot* of others qualifiers are used, some are strange and/or probably wrong but some seems legit too. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 15:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
German translation of the label / deutsche Übersetzung der Bezeichnung
editMir scheint es wäre sinnvoll (deutlicher), auch auf Deutsch ein Hilfsverb zu verwenden:
- Englisch "has edition" ---> Deutsch "hat Ausgaben".
I would like to propose to change the German translation of the label from "Ausgabe" (edition) into "hat Ausgaben" (has editions).
--Villa loga-WB (talk) 14:15, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
- just do it! 😀 --Shisma (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
Done --Pasleim (talk) 13:00, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Edition or translation?
editShould the label of this property be "has edition or translation" to mirror the inverse property edition or translation of (P629)? The word "edition" is not inclusive of "translation" among non-specialists. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 21:33, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
An unqualified qualifier
editDear MisterSynergy, good evening, I was correcting On the Origin of Species (Q20124) with 35 "warnings" at the start. I arrive at Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) where I already correct the value. Now I have a problem with the qualifier has edition or translation (P747). P747 cannot be a qualifier but only a main value. I see in the history that this property underwent a change on June 15, 2018 with, in summary, a link on this decision. I haven't read it all, but why should has edition or translation (P747) only be a main value? If Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) is only entitled to one qualifier who can not be used as a qualifier, I lose my Latin? Help. It is frustrating to look for mistakes that may not be. I added exception to constraint (P2303) to the constraint in has edition or translation (P747) (to report the problem only), but it is useless, since each misuse is an Item. Apparently there are 288 misuses. How many of these entries have the same problem? What needs to be changed: exceptions, scope,… ? —Eihel (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, this looks broken.
- In June 2018 we created the property scope constraint (Q53869507), which works differently than the "constraint scope" that we also have. My edit that you have mentioned was part of an automated batch that moved some of the "constraint scope" to "property scope" where it fitted the intention. I do not insist that this is ultimately correct, and I did not check the situation in depth before making this move.
- That said, I do not think that this is your problem here. Rather, I consider has edition or translation (P747) qualifiers on Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) claims bad practice. P747 formerly had the label "edition", which was changed to "has edition" (coincidentally as well) in June 2018. Instead of has edition or translation (P747) qualifiers, I think that stated in (P248) references with the same values that are currently being used for the qualifiers would be a more appropriate for Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) claims—however I am not sure whether it is the best choice. This should be discussed on Property talk:P1036 before being implemented.
- —MisterSynergy (talk) 22:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Value of qualifier should always match values of Q properties
editCurrently there are following allowed qualifiers constraints: language of work or name (P407), volume (P478), publication date (P577), place of publication (P291), edition number (P393), publisher (P123) etc.. The problem is that the Qs should have the same properties with the same values as these qualifiers. For example, take a look at Guns, Germs, and Steel (Q279022) - it has has edition or translation (P747) set to Guns, Germs, and Steel (Q60372539) and the Q60372539 has publication date (P577) = 1997, however it's not set as qualifier value in Q279022. How to achieve consistency here (automatically or semi-automatically)? --Kanzat (talk) 21:35, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Resolving error linking Q12797994 and Q107278413
editI'm new to Wikidata. I'm trying to add information about the current authoritative translation of the Book of Concord (Q12797994) into English (Q107278413) I've put the has edition property in the Book of Concord item and the edition of property in the The Book of Concord entry. I get an error flag in both items. What am I doing wrong? CTSmithre (talk) 18:34, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Reversed change of scope
edit@Lectrician1: You don't get to unilaterally change the scope of a property, I have reverted your changes. This property exists in a form, and that is its form at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: Yeah, I understand. That's fine. I guessed it would be just kind of weird with this property in use but now 2 separate inverse properties. Lectrician1 (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Add Property Edition Type
editNot all editions are of the same type, especially for popular books. Therefore, I'm proposing to add a Property: Edition Type. This property would have four types: Original; Reprint; Illustrated Edition; Edited Edition. Original would only apply to which the original author contributed to. Reprint would be a reprint of an original publication. Illustrated Edition is a reprint with additional/different graphics. Edited Edition has been edited by an editor. This additional property would allow for a finer degree of distinguishment between editions. Languageseeker (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Change spanish label of the property
editText in English
I propose changing the spanish label of the property has edition or translation (P747) from "edición o traducción" to "tiene edición o traducción" since the former is ambiguous and it can be confused with edition or translation of (P629) (whose spanish label is "edición o traducción de"). I'll change the label on 2 May 2022 00:00 UTC if nobody opposes to this proposal.
Texto en español
Propongo cambiar la etiqueta en español de la propiedad has edition or translation (P747) de "edición o traducción" a "tiene edición o traducción", debido que el primero es ambiguo y puede ser confundido con edition or translation of (P629) (cuya etiqueta en español es "edición o traducción de"). Lo cambiaré el 2 de mayo del 2022 a las 00:00 UTC si nadie se opone a esta propuesta.
Rdrg109 (talk) 03:33, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Support Lectrician1 (talk) 03:39, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
value-requires-statement constraint publication date
editI deprecated the value-requires-statement constraint (Q21510864) for publication date (P577) since there are many cases where this property is used to link a subclass which doesn't have a concrete publication date, e.g. Wikipedia (Q52)has edition or translation (P747)Wikipedia language edition (Q10876391).
inverse constraint with P629 is deprecated
editWith the introduction of translation of (P9745) I'm going to remove the inverse constraint with edition or translation of (P629). Some of the works should link back via translation of (P9745) instead. Midleading (talk) 09:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Add page(s) (P304) to allowed qualifiers
editpage(s) (P304) is not currently included as a permissable qualifier, but there are 236 uses of it by my count and it is useful for specifying when an edition or translation is included within an anthology text. Pinging most frequent recent users of this property, @Pfadintegral @Loenstock @EncycloPetey JASHough (talk) 18:41, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- To respond, I need to know the context. If you can provide examples, linked, that would be helpful. I have no idea how to search for instances of the issue you're discussing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
- This was a page I was working on recently where I had this issue: Q126714314 In this instance, the publication includes editions of other documents also and so I wanted to specify the pages where you would find the edition on this specific one within the larger book. I'm working with the IDEA Project for context and trying to represent data relating to ancient documents written on sheets of papyrus. However, I also find that this has been a problem for people representing specific poems that appear in poetry collections - this is an example for a poem by Heinrich Heine. JASHough (talk) 19:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
- There probably needs to be a discussion on whether this: (work1) --has edition--> (edition of work2, including work1) is the correct way to do it, because I have also seen: (work1) --has edition--> (edition of work1, as included in work2) --part of--> (edition of work2, including work1) and the two approaches do not seem compatible to me. There is also (work1) --part of--> (work2) --has edition--> (edition of work2, including work1), of course, but there I do not see a compatibility problem. Pfadintegral (talk) 08:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- I think a key issue here is that in the scenarios I'm referring to, the edition is not a work in its own right but a compilation of editions of works. So it's not (work 1) --has edition--> (edition of work 2, including work 1), but rather (work 1) --has edition--> (compilation text/anthology, on a particular set of pages). The compilation text, as I see it, doesn't exist separately from the works that constitute it. The issue then with "(work1) --has edition--> (edition of work1, as included in work2) --part of--> (edition of work2, including work1)" it is what you would put as 'edition of work1', since that would be this compilation text itself, and I presume you couldn't have compilation text as a --part of-- itself. Using --part of-- with the compilation text as the value would I think be possible, but doesn't express how the work is a part of the compilation text as precisely as 'has edition'.
- I'm not sure what I've said here is entirely clear, so let me try to explain with a concrete example.
- P.Dura 118 is a list of names written on a sheet of papyrus found in the ancient city of Dura Europos. This is published within The excavations at Dura-Europos: final report V, pt. 1: The Parchments and papyri. The excavations at Dura-Europos: final report V, pt. 1: The Parchments and papyri publishes other documents also (such as P.Dura 126), and is essentially an anthology of such texts. 'The Parchment and Papyri' thus isn't a work in the same sense that P.Dura 118 is a work, and it would never have more than one edition, even though the individual documents that constitute it may have gone on to have multiple editions. If I understand the second model you've outlined here correctly, this is how it would go: (P.Dura 118) --has edition--> ('The Parchment and Papyri') --part of--> ('The Parchment and Papyri') - which doesn't seem to work.
- You could say (P.Dura 118) --part of--> ('The Parchment and Papyri'), but this seems more vague than using 'has edition'.
- What I really want to do, therefore, is (P.Dura 118) --has edition--> ('The Parchment and Papyri') --qualifier:page(s)--> 391
- JASHough (talk) 19:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, even a work that only has a single edition needs separate work and edition items, because those are conceptually different things for Wikidata. And being a collection of various works by different authors does not preclude something from being a work for this purpose. Pfadintegral (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Pfadintegral Okay, my question in that case is how work and edition would be differentiated in terms of properties? I'm concerned they'd more or less be duplicates of one another. Is there a data model for which properties should be included for a work and which for an edition? Or would you by any chance have an example? That would be very helpful.
- JASHough (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Pfadintegral I actually just went searching and found this data model on Wikiproject Books where it notes that having a work item is necessary, but that where you have only one edition you could conflate the two. JASHough (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- As I understand it, even a work that only has a single edition needs separate work and edition items, because those are conceptually different things for Wikidata. And being a collection of various works by different authors does not preclude something from being a work for this purpose. Pfadintegral (talk) 06:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)