Wikidata:Property proposal/Access status

access status edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Done: online access status (P6954) (Talk and documentation)

Description	qualifier for an ID property describing the accessibility of the linked content
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Allowed values	paywall (Q910845), open access (Q232932), free to read (Q24707952) +a new "partially free" item for some cases (usually Hathitrust IDs) where the record includes both free-to-read/OC content and closed content
Example 1	The genus Dionysia (Primulaceae), a synopsis and five new species (Q22237867)P356 10.3372/WI.37.37102 Access status → open access (Q232932)
Example 2	(item for article)JSTOR article ID (P888).1507883 Access status → free to read (Q24707952) (requires account for free access)
Example 3	(item for article)HathiTrust ID (P1844).001104888 Access status → paywall (Q910845)

Motivation edit

There are some ID properties, most obviously DOI (P356), but also HathiTrust ID (P1844) and JSTOR article ID (P888), that have content that may be either freely accessible (but not necessarily open content) or paywalled depending on various factors. I think having a way to indicate this directly without to force people to click the links is a useful feature.

This would be used strictly as a qualifier to IDs and in references (qualifiers cannot be used in references). Circeus (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Comment I think we had a previously proposal along these lines, if it can be found that discussion should be reviewed. Also there are a number of related copyright/license properties already which should be linked with "see also". ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:54, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's copyright status (P6216) and copyright license (P275). Am I missing anything else? Circeus (talk) 23:40, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support David (talk) 09:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure whether an DOI address has an access status as an inherent property. Different providers for a DOI value might have different access status. I would also appreciate if you specify how changing access status should be modelled. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:55, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DOIs definitely do not, case in point: different DOIs of the same providers may have different levels of accessibility (i.e. single open-access articles). I don't see the need to model "changing access status" aside from changing the item used. I mean, this is more of an internal convenience property than something about the item itself. Besides, we don't worry about modelling changes over time of things like object stated in reference as (P5997), which are equally capable of change. Circeus (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, @Circeus: your examples should use Wikidata items, not the ID's from other sources. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a qualifier property to the statements shown, the representative items these IDs correspond to are entirely irrelevant to the proposal (FWIW, only one exists, mostly because we don't import from JSTOR and HathiTrust the way we auto-import DOIs). It's problematic enough that {{Statement}} is incapable of handling a string value composed of numbers... Circeus (talk) 20:15, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If intended as a qualifier it should be clear in the proposal and description. Nevertheless, take a look at how examples have been done for other qualifier properties - it doesn't work perfectly, but being consistent in how you use the examples makes things a lot clearer for potential users and discussants here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I shortened the description a bit and made the examples look more normal; looks good to me now! ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ChristianKl, ArthurPSmith, Circeus: Done: online access status (P6954). − Pintoch (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]