Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending – properties which have been approved but which are on hold waiting for the appropriate datatype to be made available
Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/04.
This property was requested after extensive consultation with the Wikidata community and experts on ed tech, OER, global and national curriculum, education policy, and digitization. Over the two rounds of the consultation, we received input from 31 individuals representing various global perspectives and areas of expertise to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project.
draft
Description
States the competencies one needs to acquire after taking up a course or class or a lesson
After studying any course or programme, learners are expected to gain or acquire certain skills. Some of these skills include critical thinking,problem solving become critical thinkers, problem solvers, creators, innovators, good communicators, collaborators, digitally literate, and culturally and globally sensitive citizens. In the example above, competencies that learners are expected to acquire in a course such as journalism will be critical thinking (that is, improving their critical thinking skills). A student after studying a Socio-economic Development (Q113463655) course (Sub-Strand) should have acquired a problem solving competence (relative) and another student studying Family Life (Q113463652) is supposed to come out of that course (Sub-Strand) with Personal Development (Q113465751). Dnshitobu (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrews Lartey: You have proposed many properties recently but in none of them so far are the examples demonstrated properly. For this one, for example, you should find an existing Wikidata item (or propose a new one) that is the subject for each example - presumably it should be some sort of curriculum item since that is what you have been describing. With a clearer illustration it will be possible for others to evaluate your proposals, otherwise it is very unclear what you are trying to do here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:59, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Thierry Caro, have you checked the example we have provided at Test Wikidata (Q223773) for this property? In curriculum, a course teaches different competencies to students. When we studied Ghana's curriculum, we found different competencies that are part of the curriculum. Also, please let us know what more information you require, we are here to make improvement and also learn from you. SPatnaik (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thierry Caro, I can understand the confusion with the generic example it had before, WiR for this project @Dnshitobu has recently added items that are relevant to the project. I have made some changes to the example, referring to Ghana's National curriculum for B7 Social Studies. I hope the examples are clear now. SPatnaik (WMF) (talk) 22:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I guess it's clearer this way but I'm still not convinced by the overall idea behind the proposal. I doubt, for instance, that there is much meaning in having items such as Creativity (Q113465748). They sound made up out of thin air. I maintain my vote against. Thierry Caro (talk) 09:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thierry CaroYou can read more from the Mathematics B1-B3 curriculum of Ghana on page VI and VII. You can get its correlation with the other aspect of the curriculum on page 2 a more detailed approach on page 24, on the third column titled Core Competencies/Subject Specific Practices. Please let us know if you still have challenges Dnshitobu (talk) 11:49, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If I understand the proposed property correctly, then I think that "learning outcome" would be a better name. The name "competency" could be mistaken to mean the level of competency (e.g., "highly competent") instead of the skills or knowledge that are expected to be acquired during a course of study. Also, what are the classes of items does it apply to? (Classes? Curriculums? Or something else?) Would this property be used to indicate that a person is competent in a particular skill? — The Erinaceous One 🦔04:21, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@The-erinaceous-one Thank you for the comments. You have raised genuine concerns but this property is will be used to measure a skill(s) a student gets or is expected to get after studying a particular concept or unit in a curriculum. For example, a student who sits for a lesson for Family Life (Q113463652) is expected to develop Personal Development (Q113465751) according to the Ghanaian curriculum. However, each curriculum comes with a unique set of skills henceforth known as Competency to be achieved for each subject. The term "learning outcome" might even be mistaken as learning objectives or learning goals.
How is the proposed property different from learning objectives? They sound the same to me, but "learning objectives" (or "learning goals") would be a better a better label because (1) it indicates that a given item is the desired outcome of a class than a guaranteed outcome and (2) it is less prone to being misunderstood. — The Erinaceous One 🦔00:21, 29 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Erinaceous One 🦔 We have made plans to change the name to learning outcomes. Would it be appropriate to rename this property as such or we have to create a new request? You recommendation is really valuable here. Dnshitobu (talk) 17:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Weak oppose because the intent is good but the name and definition don't seem right. A competency is a thing, it can be defined, say in a curriculum or a competency framework for a profession. A course can then teach that competency, an exam can assess that competency, a job or a qualification may require that competency. So, how does a curriculum relate to a competency? The current model suggests that the curriculum defines a course that teaches the competency; however, I think it might be just as valid to say that the curriculum defines the competency. --Philbarker (talk) 15:17, 9 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We appreciate the efforts and the time you spent reviewing the proposed properties. We are reviewing all your comments and some collated pieces of advice and would update the proposals soon and reply accordingly to all question. Dnshitobu (talk) 16:10, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at this and Dnshitobu (talk • contribs • logs)’s other recent property proposals together with the “WD4E Data Model 2022”, a couple issues stand out to me in particular: ➊ The terminology may be too closely aligned with the Ghanaian style guide for curricula to generalize as well as the proposed generic labels for the properties suggest (e.g., “competency”). There is nothing wrong with modeling Ghanaian curricula in particular, but if properties are to be created to support that effort specifically (as suggested by the fact that similar labels don’t seem to fit), they should be labeled as such. ➋ The terminology in the “WD4E Data Model 2022” and in this and related property proposals seems unclear and inconsistent. Terms are sometimes used both as labels for classes and for attributes (properties) of those same classes (e.g., “local education level” here). This makes it difficult to discern the intended semantics. ➌ Many of the examples given in this and related property proposals seem inconsistent with the intended data model. This may be because the contributors working on the proposals tried to find existing items with which to showcase the proposed properties, but those items may not quite be what the proposed properties would actually be used with eventually. If that is the case I would suggest creating new items or inventing mock labels for the property-use examples as needed. ➍ The direction of the intended main classification relations in the “WD4E Data Model 2022” is counter the usual Wikidata convention: in Wikidata, it is typically the more specific items that point to the less specific items: something like Douglas Adams (Q42)part of (P361)humanity (Q1156970), but not humanity (Q1156970)has part(s) (P527)Douglas Adams (Q42). Following this convention may make the data model both more palatable to reviewing experienced Wikidatans and easier to use in the long run. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectrician1, @BrokenSegue, @ChristianKl, @ArthurPSmith We are very happy you have spent sometime reviewing this property request, a few changes have been made to it and we would be happy if you could take a look, comment or recommend on best practices so that we get this done and we all can move on. Thank you for your support all this while. As for the Strong Support comments, we made a presentation at a forum about how we are making efforts to digitize curriculum data on Wikidata and asked for their support in reviewing the proposal and for whatever reasons best known to them (We believe it was out of excitement), they came to give all our proposals strong support. Dnshitobu (talk) 11:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose One of the big problems is that you only think about your single use case and not about Wikidata as a whole when you make those property proposals. It sounds like you decided on a data model with people without Wikidata experience.
Going forward, it might be best to either sit down and create a data model together with experienced Wikidata editors go to just use your own Wikibase instance if you want your own custom data model. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to my attention and thank you for spending time reviewing our proposals. This is a pilot project and we are looking at how Wikidata can handle school curricula from different countries by its linked data structure. I apologize for my mistake in the last update. In fact, I was supposed to do it off Wikidata, ask for validation from my team before publishing it here. That was my bad and I don’t think this would happen again. In the interim, we have moved the property to draft to fix the necessary issues with the property and once we are done with all relevant changes, we will keep you posted on that. I appreciate your feedback and will take it into account going forward.
I would like to create a data model to describe notable actions agents have made that are described in various Wikimedia articles. We should allow users to document actions so that they can be used to create timelines of events that can then be easily translated. They can also be used as a source to generate detailed Wikipedia article content for Abstract Wikipedia.
This property is the first to be proposed of the data model and follows the Schema.org data model for actions: https://schema.org/Action
I actually was considering using telephone call (Q2296401) as an example! However, I think the what that item is describing is the act of talking to someone over a telephone. Not the act of calling someone on a telephone. The agent of a telephone call (Q2296401) is just a normal human then.
Good catch with the similarities to practiced by (P3095)! I almost thought for a second that we could maybe just broaden the scope and rename practiced by (P3095) to "done by" but then I realized that the domain of practiced by (P3095) includes "fields" which are not really actions. I think it's important to distinguish that this is meant for actions by maintaining "action" in the label. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use those properties for classes, though. Not sure why the only examples are for instance values, class values look much more valuable here to me. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 03:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intuitively I’d have (in the telephone example) associated the telephone with ‘object’, but yes, ‘patient’ and ‘object’ are probably hard to keep apart in any consistent way. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wd-Ryan, Midleading: Regarding the telephone-call example, note the close similarity with the dog-walking example in the proposal for a property “frame element” that attempts to capture actions from a frame-semantics angle. One might want to look into whether the frame-semantics approach is better-suited to statements over classes and the the approach proposed here, to statements over instances. At any rate, I think one and the same property should not be used for both class statements and instance statements. (A property like this here one but for class statements should have the distinctive interpretation of something like “instances have agents of type”.) Insofar I support the current choice of examples for this property proposal. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly support this, I've been unable to add a group that performed an event without the implication that it was "immoral". It could be renamed to "done by". -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Property stating that one frame is an integral sub-unit of another, in terms of the action or state described by the parent frame. This is distinct from frame elaboration.
See discussion of the 'frame element' property for general motivation of this class of properties. For the 'subframe' property, there is the question of whether, in terms of data structure design, it is preferable to have both 'frame element' and 'subframe' be distinct relations, to have the latter be a subtype of the former, or to dispense with the latter in favor of the former. Not all elements of a semantic frame are subframes (at least as those elements are typically represented in frame notation, such as LEASH in WALKING THE DOG), but a subframe could be argued to be an element of a parent frame.
@Sinleqeunnini: Please provide actual examples that reference the items or lexemes you mean. Otherwise, this looks like it's not really optimized to deal with the way Wikidata works. Note that Wikidata does distinguish between entities represented by items and lexemes that point toward those items in individual languages. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Sorry for the delay in responding. I thought I would get automatic updates from Wikidata about responses, but it seems to not be so.
Two examples (one from the explanation of the proposed property 'lexical unit') would be
Artillery (Q64418) is a frame element/role of War (Q198)
'Lugal' (Q854642) is a lexical unit of City (Q515)
The first example is not a frame specific to, or even found within, the language and associated culture of Akkadian. In the second, while an appropriate item for the lexical unit 'lugal' already exists, we would probably want to replace City with Ancient Mesopotamian City, as the two are fairly different frames. One frequent question in building frames for Akkadian will thus be whether pre-given items in Wikidata can function as adequate frames for that language/culture, or whether there needs to be an elaboration (as above) or different item altogether. Sinleqeunnini (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinleqeunnini: Lugal (Q854642)lexical unitcity (Q515) tells a Wikidata user very little of how Lugal (Q854642) and city (Q515) relate to each other. Besides, there isn't anything lexical about any of the two by the dictionary definition of "lexical". I find "relating to the words or vocabulary of a language" and "relating to or of the nature of a lexicon or dictionary" as definition for lexical. Those items are not about words or vocabulary.
If we wanted to link from Q854642 to Q515 the related property would be something like "rules over the jurisdiction" on an equivalent of that. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ChristianKI,
I believe I understand your arguments. Let me respond to them point by point.
I agree that the entry for Lugal does not indicate how it relates to city, even though it is a fact that a Sumerian lugal rules from a city. But that seems to be an issue with how rich the entry for Lugal is rather than my proposal for frame properties, since those properties are meant to indicate fairly generic, cognitive linguistic properties involving frame elements and their frames (for instance, that one item sits in the frame relation to another item).
I think I made a slight mistake in my example of Lugal (Q854642). My understanding of Q-items is that they can represent general things like concepts and objects. Lexemes in Wikidata are labeled as L-items. A better example would be: 'lugal (L643713) is a lexical unit for RULING A MESOPOTAMIAN CITY (Q...).' The predicate item here needs to be a semantic frame or scene (conventionally indicated in capital letters), and I have chosen a phrase 'RULING A MESOPOTAMIAN CITY' to emphasize both that the predicate is not a lexical item, and also is about the specific scene of ruling a Mesopotamian city. I do not think the specific Q-item for that exists in Wikidata so I did not give a specific Q-number, and as said previously, it is still an issue for me to be worked out how much to rely on existing Q-items to serve as frames instead of making new Q-items.
Note also that there can be multiple properties linking two items. While Lugal (Q854642) is related to City (Q515) in the sense of 'rules over the jurisdiction of', note also that Lugal (Q854642) can be seen as a semantic role, and relates to City (or perhaps better labeled CITY) as a frame element. The notion of 'rules over the jurisdiction of' is a semantic elaboration of 'frame element'.
Wikidata properties are not meant to be generic but exist to express the specific relationship between two items.
Wikidata has certain objects. There are items (number starting with Q), there are lexemes (number starting with L) and there are properties (number starting with P). If you make a proposal for a Wikidata property it needs to be made up of out those entities. Thinking in terms whether something is better labeled as City or CITY is a way to ignore the underlying concepts that exist in Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that my proposed properties are actually specific for the items they deal with, namely semantic frames. The idea of a 'frame element', 'subframe of', etc. are quite specific to frames. If it helps, you can consult one of the introductions to frame semantics to understand them better (for instance, Sullivan 2013, Frames and constructions in metaphoric language).
Indeed, everything I have proposed uses those three categories (L, Q, and P). It is, of course, important to distinguish between a lexeme and a 'concept' in a Wikidata project, and of course among different types of concepts (a simple example being say between 'cat' and 'dog'). My point about the difference in labelling some City or CITY is meant exactly to resolve the confusion which I think is affecting you. On the one hand, there is the general convention in linguistics of using capital letters to refer to a semantic object (i.e. a 'concept') rather than a linguistic entity like a spoken or written work. Thus CITY is the concept that is, shall we say, 'mentally associated' with the written word 'city'. This includes references to semantic frames, which are concepts. Yet I do think for most people (especially those not versed in frame semantics), simply equating concepts with frames is misleading. If you were to ask someone to elaborate on their understanding of a concept like 'City', they likely would not give you an answer showing they are thinking in terms of frames (e.g. semantic roles, affordances, scripts), even if the theory of semantic frames itself argues that most of what we call 'concepts' should in fact be seen as frames. Put another way, if you ask someone to describe their conception of a dog, they will likely tell you some physical characteristics of a prototypical image of a dog. But frame theory itself says that the concept of a dog, as it is stored in the brain, importantly includes affordances and related roles that likely do not emerge in someone's verbal description (e.g. the dog's owner, a leash, how a dog typically acts and sounds, what a person is supposed to do with a dog, etc.). Understanding a concept 'as' a frame, or thinking of the closest frame that encapsulates whatever the person is thinking of as the concept, is important for understanding my proposed properties and the related issue of labeling items.
Indeed, this raises the question of whether many of the concepts (i.e. Q-items) in Wikidata should automatically be used to represent frames, since they must both describe semantic roles and (for the purposes of my current project) reflect the semantic frames existing in ancient Mesopotamia (rather than say, the modern USA). From a database design perspective, it may not be appropriate to use the concept of City (Q515) to represent the Mesopotamian frame of a city, or it may still be possible. I don't know yet. However, I believe that issue is technically separate from the status of the proposed properties.
The fact that Wikidata labels what it calls 'concepts' without all capitals is fine since the matter is one of convention. However, I used the label CITY specifically to highlight that we are speaking about a semantic frame rather than just a 'concept' per se. What I wrote above indicates this may both be a general issue of understanding by the user (what a frame is) and an issue of culturally specific frames (whether, say, a Mesopotamian city seen as a frame is approximated by the Wikidata Q-item of City). Sinleqeunnini (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinleqeunnini: In Wikidata we are always either speaking about items, properties or lexemes. If you want to engage here you have to accept those terms as the basic ontology of Wikidata. It's fine for Sullivan to use an ontology where city and CITY refer to different things, but that's Sullivan's ontology and not Wikidata's. On Wikidata it's items, properties and lexemes.
A proposed property needs valid examples of how the property will be used. Again, those examples need to be expressed in terms of items, properties and lexemes. Currently, you have not put any valid example that's made up of those into the property proposal template for any of the properties you proposed. Seperately, you would also need to write property descriptions to have valid proposals. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I believe I have followed that ontology of items, properties, and lexemes. My purpose in using the ontological terms from linguistics was to make clearer to you the need and benefit of my proposed properties. If it helps, here I will restrict myself to using the three terms items, properties, and lexemes. Recall that you initially raised objections to the use of the proposed properties, whose justifications come precisely from understanding what semantic frames are and how they work. For instance, you said above:
": Lugal (Q854642)lexical unitcity (Q515) tells a Wikidata user very little of how Lugal (Q854642) and city (Q515) relate to each other. Besides, there isn't anything lexical about any of the two by the dictionary definition of "lexical". I find "relating to the words or vocabulary of a language" and "relating to or of the nature of a lexicon or dictionary" as definition for lexical. Those items are not about words or vocabulary.
If we wanted to link from Q854642 to Q515 the related property would be something like "rules over the jurisdiction" on an equivalent of that."
But this objection fails to understand how the items Lugal (Q854642) and city (Q515) are understood, namely as frames (Q115792501) or frame elements (Q116999706) (with the status of such items as frames perhaps expressed by the 'instance of' property). Not all items are frames, but Lugal and city are, or perhaps city is, with Lugal being a frame element of city. If we are interested in relationships between items that are frames (including their relation to lexical items), then the properties 'frame element of', 'subframe of', 'elaboration of', and 'lexical unit' are of primary importance. Those (and others like them) are relationships at the exact level of generality needed to describe how items that are frames relate to each other in general. While the property 'rules over the jurisdiction' is more specific to the items Lugal and city, it cannot be used to describe the relationship between other items that are frames and their elements, such as leash (Q384873) and dog walking (Q38438).
@Sinleqeunnini You still haven't provided a single example in the templates that's made up of lexemes/properties/items. If you are not willing to do so, maybe it's better to just end this discussion?
If you suggest that city (Q515) should have instance of (P31) "frame" that's quite a big ask from Wikidata and I don't see that you have made an argument about why that would be desireable for Wikidata that goes beyond "it's the same model that people use somewhere in linguistics". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is what I provided in the proposal for the property 'frame element of' (i.e. Wikidata:Property proposal/frame element of) not a proper example? Sinleqeunnini (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Sinleqeunnini Is the proposal of 'frame element of' you provided English language strings. As I said above, it's items, lexemes and properties. Items have Q-numbers, properties P-numbers and lexemes L-numbers. lexical unit now has one example that actually an example and needs two more. I usually don't work much with lexemes I didn't talk about senses before. Are you sure that a lexeme is the right thing and that a sense wouldn't be more fitting for lexical unit? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I finally see what was wrong. I will fill out the remaining examples in a bit.
Well, apart from the issue of homonymy (bank = river bank versus bank = place for money) in frame theory I believe it should be lexical units rather than senses since senses are themselves understood as frames. A lexeme thus can (and usually does) evoke many different frames.
However, I see here a potential problem since in my set-up lexical units are treated largely as linguistic tokens divorced from semantic information. They 'evoke' semantic content in the form of frames. The Wikidata template for lexemes specifies senses of the lexeme as suffixes (e.g. L9999-S1, L9999-S2). If we want to say that senses in Wikidata convey the content of frames, that makes the identifiers for those frames an extension of L-numbers, whereas frames should mainly be seen as Q-numbered things (i.e. concepts). Sinleqeunnini (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Wd-Ryan Main statement. For specifying the direction of change (increase or decrease) we can use P31 for now, though I may propose another property in the future. Lectrician1 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The description should avoid the term property as it's easily confused with the normal meaning of property within Wikidata.
I think I would prefer "is change of" as the name for this property.
"direction of change" sounds a bit to narrow and it would be worth seeing whether we can find a qualifier for "change of" that can specify the qualities of the change. In addition to increase/decrease the quality might also be fast/slow and likely others as well.
@ChristianKl The item itself is the change though. For that reason we would use a main statement to describe its direction, not a qualifier. Also, ageing is human-specific. Look at the sitelinked Wikipedia article. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sitelinked Wikipedia article does not specify the meaning of the Wikidata article. A meaning of a Wikidata item is specified by it's statements. Changing the meaning of structured data items by adding something like "it applies to humans" in the description when it's something that's likely be currently used by data users for non-human uses is pretty messy.
It also conflicts with statements that the item currently has which explicitely link it to be exact matches of the concept that's applies to non-human organisms as well. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear to me what's special about direction here that would warrent a qualifier that's specialized to this single use case that's about direction. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Although I support reducing the use of "of", I think it should be done systematically with an eye to carving off the biggest use cases first. This proposal captures subclasses of "increase" and "decrease" and a few more, but when I query for subclasses of "increase", I don't get many: [1] (even if you switch this to a recursive search, it only ends up with 944, not all trustworthy). --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying we can yet (other than using "of" for the time being, which works). But in terms of replacing of, I think we should hit the biggest chunks systematically first. This chunk will then hopefully fit into one of the others. For example, on this page Wikidata:WikiProject_Data_Quality/Issues/P642, perhaps "change of" is part of COD9 #6 "direction", so once that is captured, this might follow. --99of9 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9 It still doesn't seem reasonable to me that you would oppose something just because it's "not doing a lot". It's at least doing something... Every little step towards getting rid of of (P642) is a needed one. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that perspective. It may turn out that my caution is unnecessary or unreasonable. But isn't it possible that if this one is approved, then writing a general one for COD9#6 will become harder, because we'll either have to avoid this one or deprecate this one? --99of9 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@99of9 Having specific properties is better than having general ones? Then it makes querying easier and property less prone to incorrect usage. This is a very clear property to use and I can't see why we wouldn't want this. Lectrician1 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It could be used to model displacement, as change of position; synonyms: modifies, transforms. It'd be useful to have also "rate of change of", to model velocity, as rate of change of position. Currently we only have "facet of", which is very broad. Fgnievinski (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For constraints, we need the equivalent of exception to constraint (P2303), but for lexemes. In particular, it is necessary for identifier properties used on lexemes (usually linking to dictionaries which often have a few weird exceptions like natural languages often have).
Comment Please keep in mind that, until the necessary software changes (in WikibaseQualityConstraints and/or KrBot) have been made, this property will have no effect except to confuse users why it isn’t working. There should at the very least be an associated Phabricator task, and IMHO the property should only be created once the Wikidata team has committed to implementing the support in WBQC soon. I’d like to avoid a repeat of Wikidata:Property proposal/applies if regular expression matches. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ARTCENA est une association sous tutelle du Ministère de la Culture née de la fusion de deux structures publiques culturelles : Hors les murs et le Centre National du théâtre (CNT) en 2016. ARTCENA est le principal centre de ressources dans le secteur du théâtre, des arts de la rue et du cirque en France. Sa base de données est riche et représentative des organismes de ces secteurs sur le territoire français. Il semble pertinent que les identifiants uniques de cette structure culturelle se retrouvent dans les éléments de wikidata.
Joe Brable (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relates directly a placename to its original language family. It's not the language in which the toponym is written, but the language from which the word (place name) comes from.
Before reading please notice that probably the examples above are wrong because I don't understand how the example template works.
Right now I haven't found a way to relate each toponym to a linguistic root, or a language family. There is a native label (Q45025080) item, but in its description is pointing to how the word is written in its original/native language.
I want to do this classification so I can organize an classify each toponym with its language family and do it a in a more scientific way. Right now I am adding a new statement for each toponym I am interested in using the language of work or name (P407) property and then adding the value of its language family to each "language of work or name" property. Here is the query: https://w.wiki/86BD{{SPARQL}}
Technically it works, but the information I am linking doesn't corresponds to how science, linguists, onomastics and toponymy studies the language family of place names. Probably the property I am suggesting is too specific to one set of data (language family (Q25295)), so maybe it is better to find a way for a property to hold more linguistic information, such as "evolution of the name through history" or a "why this place is called that way". This is up to discussion.
– The preceding unsigned comment was added byDuityors (talk • contribs) at 18:22, October 30, 2023 (UTC).
Comment @Duityors: in another forum in November, I mentioned to you that if the original language and meaning in that original language of the place names was known, lexemes could be created for those names as a first step (either adding senses referring to the places to those lexemes, or linking Spanish lexemes for those places to the original language lexemes via derived from lexeme (P5191), as a later step). Two months later, perhaps that seems like a better idea? Mahir256 (talk) 17:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256 Until know I can sit and analyze your comment. Thank you! I am going to research more about lexeme creation. Still, I am still interested in this proposal. Duityors (talk) 22:35, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All events and actions have semantic core roles - "eating" has the "eater" and the "eaten", "throwing" has the "thrower", the "target" and the "projectile". These roles are not optional. Every act of "eating" has an "eater" and the "eaten" independently of how and in which language it is expressed. Most of the existing items for actions do not mention these roles. See our project Events and Role Frames for a more detailed description and discussion. There are several property proposals currently under discussion: “agent of action”, “object of action”, “frame element” to partially remedy this problem. In our opinion, these proposals, while going in the right direction are limited (we discuss their limitations in our project pages). Instead, we propose a more general solution consistent with PropBank, the largest repository of structured event and action descriptions (over 11,000 role sets).
In our proposal, an event can have several "event role" statements each pointing to a item that describes the role in greater detail. Such items will be subclasses of Q_event_role and will be specific to every event-role combination, e.g., Q_eater_in_eating or Q_eaten_in_eating. In some cases, there are existing items that can be used as event roles. For example, eater (Q20984678) can be used as Q_eater_in_eating and food (Q2095) as Q_eaten_in_eating (although there are some problems in using these items that are discussed in our project Events and Role Frames). But in many cases the existing items that describe event roles do not currently exist and need to be created. The event role items use another proposed property "selectional preference" to specify the kinds of items that can play this role, see the selectional preference proposal. The proposed new items will connect back to the event via the "role in event" property, proposed separately.
It is important to note that the proposed property should be applied only to action and event classes, not instances. The event role items describe the instances that can play the role. To connect an actual instance of an event with an instance of a role we need another property and a qualifier: "event argument" and "argument type". These are described in related proposals.
To summarize, we distinguish between "event role" for event classes and "event argument" for event instances. The former point to an item describing the role, the latter to the actual item that plays the role in a specific event.
Question: Considering an example from Q118323866 (a Persian-Hindi verb glossary): ارزیدن/арзидан (L1013134) is glossed with بکنا and برابر ہونا indicating a meaning of “to value,” in the sense of to set a price for something to be sold. The predication described here is intransitive. PropBank has value.01 which looks like a close match in meaning, but involves more participants than this sense of ارزیدن permits. Would an item for a "value" event which has three roles be usable for a monovalent sense, or should it be expected that the monovalent sense of ارزیدن link to a different item? --عُثمان (talk) 18:11, 2 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Arademaker It was a question rather than an argument. There is no way to translate the verbs in question to English, but they are used in a similar way to the English expression “value sale,” to describe a sale of discounted goods. For a good to be "valued" in this sense is to be made purchasable at a fixed cost.
In any case, since asking that question, I think it is possible and necessary for event items to be agnostic to transivity and verb valency since in some languages this can vary between individual speakers describing the same event. عُثمان (talk) 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: You are right, some of the event classes have existing items describing some of the event roles. I modified the proposal to reflect this. We have to be careful, though, some of the seemingly fitting candidates for an event role concept such as receiver (Q1339255) are intended for something else, "an information theory term" in this example.
eating (Q213449) is one of a few event types where the event roles are specified using the existing properties. Currently, Wikidata uses a variety of properties to represent event roles, including some fairly general ones such as practiced by (P3095), participant (P710), uses (P2283) and many event-specific ones such as perpetrator (P8031) and victim (P8032). Currently, Wikidata property related to events (Q22964785) has 61 instances which may or may not include all of the properties used for event roles. It seems that such properties were added as needed without an overall schema. Many event types such as lecture (Q603773) or music competition (Q1955280) do not mention any roles at all. Since adding properties to Wikidata requires extensive discussion, it does not seem reasonable to use properties to represent a potentially open-ended set of event roles. For example, an event representing a chemical reaction may have several specialized roles for various ingredients. We may not want to add new properties for such roles. It is also highly unlikely that Wikidata users would agree on a finite property ontology to represent all event roles. We proposed to solve this problem by adding a single property "event role" whose object is a Q item describing the role. For many event types such role items do not exist and have to be created. Anatole Gershman (talk) 01:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we want to overpopulate or duplicate 'role Qnodes', many of which already exist (e.g., eater, Q20984678, runner, Q12803959, etc.) but we need a way to describe and organize these Qnodes as stakeholders in a verb/event (the subject of eating Q213449, the subject of running, Q105674). The idea is to treat these roles systematically, adding more of them whenever appropriate to describe an event. Take 'public election' Q40231, it is useful to know that there will be an electorate and a political candidate. Knowing that a political candidate is a role in a public election can be useful when reasoning about the T-Box of the ontology.
An organic way to label and connect existing -and new- Qnodes as roles of an event would give us a mechanism to reason about events in a more systematic manner. It doesn't affect the semantics of the roles that already exist and give us a framework to decide which other roles should be added. For example 'presidential election' (Q858439) has an 'office contested' role, but not a 'candidate' role. However the '2020 US Presidential Election' (Q22923830) has a 'successful candidate', which is a subproperty of 'candidate' (P726). This role of 'candidate' would be very useful to have in the 'public election' Qnode directly. Rosariou (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We want to make the connection of event participants to events much more consistent, so that it will be easy to find participants even if you don't know what they are typically called, and easy to extract the information automatically for all events if needed. Does the make sense? MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikidata we generally want to describe relationships as specific as possible. This property is about reducing data quality by letting data be entered in a less specified way.
The suggestion that adding two different ways to enter the information will increase consistency suggests misunderstanding how modeling plays out in practice. If you have to different ways than you have less consistency within Wikidata because different users are going to use different models.
If you want a way to automatically query such relations you could add something like practiced by (P3095)instance of (P31) "Wikidata event role property". I'm not sure that this would be the best way to model it, but it would be the way to batch different properties together.
Yes, we do seem to be learning more about Wikidata every week, and we completely agree that we want any additions we make to synchronize well with what is already there. Rosario had suggested that we use subproperty (Q112037424) to show where something that is already there is more specific than what we want to add. practiced by (P3095) is an excellent example of a more specific version of what we have been thinking of as "event-role". So, if event-role got added as a property, we would also create a sub property relation between them. However, as it is currently defined practiced by seems to primarily be for human agents of human activities, so it is good where it applies, but it doesn't really cover earthquakes as agents of destruction, for instance. And earthquakes can have many effects, such as collapsing buildings, in addition to the landslides, tsunamis and soil liquefaction that are currently listed under has effect (P1542), another excellent property. We don't want to replace practiced by but simply create a more general structure that it would be connected to in a rational way, that will make it easier to add similar kinds of things more systematically, while providing appropriate links to things that are already there. We've been rethinking our original proposal, based on your comments as well as others, and will post our new suggestions soon. MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean that the proposal will be amended so that there is a generic property and then specific roles for events would be subproperties of this generic property, reusing existing properties whereever possible? Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 13:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A. Inverses really aren't necessary or recommended in Wikidata; however they may be useful in cases where one side of a relation may have a high cardinality; can you explain why you think an inverse is necessary here? B. It would be much better if your examples involved existing Wikidata items rather than proposed new ones. How is this property to be made useful if the items involved are not connected to the rest of Wikidata somehow? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reply A. You are right, strictly speaking, inverses aren't necessary even though they are rather common. One argument for having an inverse link is computational efficiency. B. Unfortunately, there are not many existing items in Wikidata that can be used as event roles, e.g., there is no "eater in eating". A few items such as assassin (Q55983771) could be used to describe the perpetrator in assassination (Q3882219). They are connected by event-specific properties: practiced by (P3095) and the "inverse" field of this occupation (P425). We are proposing a more general solution that applies to all events. In the case of assassin (Q55983771), we could re-use this item instead of creating "Q_assassin_in_assassination". Also note that currently, there is no statement or item describing the victim of assassination (Q3882219). --Anatole Gershman (talk) 22:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We agree that the inverse property isn't strictly necessary. Another justification is that events are quite often invoked indirectly through references to prototypical roles, as in "The class was so disruptive that the teacher only got through half of the material." This clearly describes a teaching event, but could most easily be accessed by using the inverse "role in event" property from teacher to teach. MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 18:13, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This property will be a qualifier property for any time data claim.
The value may be only year (Y), (year and month (Y-MM)) or (year, month and day(Y-MM-DD)) no time allowed. the format of the value will be like ISO 8601 format with some differs:
Strong oppose @حبيشان: there is a real lack but this is a very wrong solution to solve it, time should have the datatype "Point in time" not string. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@حبيشان: this is indeed a big problem but Gregorian is still way less worse than storing time as string (plus in this proposal, Hijri Dates are still stored as Gregorian dates, which is also wrong and bad). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON the claim value will take the corresponding Gregorian Date of the Hijri date and this Gregorian Date is approximate because many of Hijri Dates relies of crescent sighting and some of them relying in calculated algorithm we have many of them (see w:Tabular_Islamic_calendar).
Why storing Gregorian with Hijri in same claim value? because many of wikidata clients have not algorithms to view the Hijri date in understandable format so what bad of this. you may suggest to set claim value to "some-value" and the Hijri Date qualifier will give the value in Hijri Calendar.
For storing time value in string: for current wikidata datatypes we have not better from storing Hijri Date as string, If you have better solution please inform us. also WikiData stores "point in time" in the database as string not numeric. حبيشان (talk) 15:38, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@VIGNERON I am ready for Adding support of Hijri Calendar to "Point in time" datatype I have past experence in adding Hijri Calendar support to PHP Applications:
Oppose It should be specified which Hijri calendar will be added as a value, given the lack of a universal Hijri calendar, since it historically depended almost entirely on sighting the new moon, which was different geographically, and even from community to another. If it's a calendar based on astronomical calculations, could it not be calculated from the Gregorian calendar? In which case, a simple conversion option could be added. If not, there is risk that multiple values will be entered, and there will likely always be an uncertainty of a few days as to the exact date.--Ideophagous (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ideophagous Multiple values is not a RISK most of properties accept multiple values.
Islamic history events that were recorded in their references exclusively in the Hijri date How do you think you can enter their date data in Wikidata, do you have a solution.
You refuse to enter the Hijri date on the pretext that it did not indicate the type of Hijri Calendar entered, while you accept the registration of historical facts with a Gregorian date while it recorded in the references with a Hijri date without mentioning the method of converting the Hijri date to Gregorian!!
It is safer to record the Hijri date as stated in the reference without any modification, and then leave it to the user to choose the appropriate conversion method.
Hello @حبيشان. Maybe the property then should be called "Sourced Hijri Date" or Hijri Date in Source" or such, and the addition of a source has to be mandatory, because I'm sure some editors will simply start converting from Gregorian to Hijri without adding a source. Ideophagous (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Ideophagous: dates always have a part of uncertainty and fuzzyness, even inside one "universal" calendar. There is nothing we can do about it, it works mostly well for Julian and Gregorian calendars, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Hijri. It could be a parameter in the datatype and if not, ranks, context and qualifiers could always be used to understand the date. That point is not a problem here. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @حبيشان. For a date, multiple values is a necessary evil, not a desirable feature. Uncertainty about an exact date may exist, but in the case of the Hijri Calendar it takes a whole new proportion. 12 Dhu Al Hijja 523 in Arabia is not necessarily 12 Dhu Al Hijja 523 in Morocco. If two events are dated to that day, but happened in different places, how can we know if they happened on the same day or not? Conversely if two events at different locations have different Hijri dates on Wikidata, how do we know they didn't happen on the same day, or how many days exactly separate them? Anyways, if you add the condition that the user will at least see a warning if they don't add a source (without exception), I will switch my vote to a weak support. Ideophagous (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Hijri date is one of the important dates for Arab and Islamic societies, and there are events, births and deaths recorded in it. It is very important to us as an Arab and Muslim society. Mohammed Qays (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. It's a very important property for Islamic Articles. And our friend حبيشان has the technical experience to help in any technical support needed for this addition.--Dr-Taher (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support, Hijri calender is very important. Islamic scholars and societies have written down their hisotry, events and other records by using it. Thus we can enrich wikidata by enormous knowledge if we add this property. Ahmed NajiTalk11:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose Storing dates as strings is not structured data. I think refine date (P4241) is the right property for this until there is proper support for more calendars. It is a common and valid use of the qualifier, the constraint violations report is wrong. If you look at the item page or Special:ConstraintReport instead, it isn't shown as a constraint violation. - Nikki (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the distinction between when something was created and when it gained popularity is important, and should be documented on Wikidata. Most of the time, it will be only a year or month. This should require a reference as it could otherwise be subjective. Let me know what you think. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 03:37, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think often it would be too hard or unreasonable to pin it down to a year. Does the data-type also allow setting a decade? Or a five-year timespan like 2018–2022? I think that could even be the most common way this is used if this was added to very many items (especially old ones). --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support only if setting timespans like that is possible. It probably should also be encouraged somehow when things aren't as clear or quick as for those examples since that is more common for earlier items. It can also be difficult to pin down even if that is possible and the common way this is used – for example would date popularized on the item Q571 (book) have the decade of the printing press adoption or sth earlier or later/broader? This issue can be solved by entering multiple dates, each with refs, with one for example for a time when there was a substantial number and growth of books and one after the printing press adoption picked up. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! You can set this data type to a decade by typing it like so: 2010s, 2000s, 1850s, etc. I don't think you can add a five-year timespan, but qualifier could be used when unsure, like sourcing circumstances (P1480) → circa (Q5727902). I think that we should rely on references to determine when something is considered popularized. Multiple dates seems fine to me. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 21:26, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would this even work in terms of referencing? Never thought I'd say something like this, but sounds a little like original research to me. --Azertus (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So if there are news reports for different years where it increased in popularity in each year, you would list every year where such a claim would be made? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @TadejM: Hi - can you fix your examples? On the left should be a Wikidata item. The id's are then on the right side of the example statements. See other recent property proposals. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure on the examples - Hamlet's wikidata item is about the work in general, but the COBISS ID refers to a Slovenian translation it looks like? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to create this qualifier to partially replace the significantly overloaded of (P642): in the service of this.
It can primarily be used as a qualifier for position held (P39) if the position is held by a person in the service of a settlement or organization. In these cases, P642 should be replaced.
Why not an employer (P108)?. In a significant part of the cases, it is a relationship in which the employer is different, and the entity in whose service the person holding the public office is different. For example: the employer of a member of parliament is the office of the parliament, while he is in service of by an administrative unit (e.g. district, county, state). An administrative unit can have a locally elected leader (e.g. mayor, council chairman, etc.) and a leader appointed by the state (government, king, etc.) (governor, prefect, etc.) the two persons are employees of different institutions, but in practice the given is at the service of the population of the administrative unit.
On the other hand, an administrative unit cannot be an employer, as it is a geographical concept. The employer is an institution created for the administration of this unit, or one of its organizations.
The head of a department or department is employed by the company, but works for that company department/division. If we entered the employer, it would not be revealed which department the person works as a manager.
Why not an represents (P1268)? For two reasons: on the one hand, because not all positions mean permanent official representation. For example, a For example, a deputy director, deputy mayor, etc. has a well-defined job description, which may not include the fact that he can represent the organization or settlement he serves. It is conceivable that this authorization is only for the duration of the obstruction of the actual director. For example:
These two statements cannot be interpreted at the same time, since the city can only have one representative at a time. But so:
mayor "in the service of this": Prague
deputy mayor "in the service of this": Prague
...it might be true. The same can cause conflicts in many other positions (e.g. minister, state secretary, deputy state secretary or director, deputy director, etc.)
The other reason is that P1268 is basically designed for organizations, but a settlement (administrative unit) is not an organization. An organization can only be an institution established for the administration of the settlement (local government, city council).
Regards. I am here, because I was precisely looking for something of the kind, to describe a current situation in French academia. There is an employer (paying the salary, deciding about promotions, and more generally the career) and there is the place where the person works or does research which is usually a laboratory/an own entity which may depend on several institutions (including in general the employer, but perhaps others, etc). Thus, I like the idea of having something different from "employed by". But I must say, I have a problem with the denomination, because "in service of" describes a specific type of relation. In my case, "attached to" or even "workplace" (if this could be an institution or administrative entity and not a town or country or geographical, which again is something different) would be better. --Cgolds (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm not sure that this new property would really solve the use of of (P642), as I expect in the end that each position will have its own item, rendering this property only transitory. IMO this is just moving the problem around and adding one more way to model positions, which will complicates queries. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArthurPSmith:, EBITDA refers to earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortization, while operating income (P3362) (EBIT) refers to earnings before interest and tax. Generally, EBITDA is used with the same frequency if not more frequently than operating profit (EBIT). They are two different accounting concepts and they exist within the same accounting standards frameworks. --Fordaemdur (talk) 17:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Important accounting concept, mostly used in Russian and other post-Soviet companies. Present in many company infoboxes in Russian Wikipedia, i suggest import from there. --Fordaemdur (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need a model for modeling fakes, forgery or feints, this is an attempt to advance in this field. Not top priority of course but nice to have I think. author TomT0m / talk page18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wd-Ryan I did not know about this property, thanks. Maybe yes, but the "trickery/deception" dimension seems absent of "simulate". Nobody would say that a special effect in a movie.
There also seems to be a fundamental difference between something that simulates a situation (truck simulator) in a virtual world and something that is intended to replace by fulfilling the same function, and a virtual simulation with no consequence in the real world besides learning and entropy increase. author TomT0m / talk page08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think there's enough difference from simulates (P12328) to justify a new property. That the purpose of a particular simulation may be to trick or deceive can be stated separately, with e.g. has goal (P3712), where relevant. Likewise for the physical/virtual nature of the simulation, which will in most cases be established by the basic membership properties. Swpb (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb I think the "artificial heart" is not a question of physical nature or not, it's a question of "fulfills the role of", it's not at all like an exercise. It's the same difference as a drône that would fulfils the same role as a soldier in a battlefield, we would not say that the drone "simulates" a soldier. It would just be a weapon.
I also still thinks that the (trickery) intention is not trivial to infer. If it's a subclass of "fake" it may be queried like this but … objectif du projet ou de la mission (P3712) : trickery is convoluted and not a better model, and also there might be a lot of inconsistent ways to express this information. Maybe using several properties in an unclear way to convoy a well identify nuance in the meaning to spare the existence of a property is not a good tradeoff. author TomT0m / talk page20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see the distinction between this and simulates. Almost all (if not all) types of fakery in a sporting sense is when someone simulates doing something, but does something else. (Hidden ball trick, diving, etc.) Have you got any examples of something where "simulates" doesn't cover it? Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lee Vilenski : my problem is actually, how do you convey the trickery sense with simulates. A fire truck simulation is not a trickery, but could also use the property you propose. But the intension behind the truck simulation is totally genuine. That's the nuance I want to convey and I did not see yet a simple way to express it.
A more convoluted way could be with queries and inferences : if the action is a subclass of run play but simulates a pass play and "an action cannot be at the same time a run play and a pass play" … (we can do the last one using "disjoint union of") or by classifying as both a subclass of "fake / trickery" and "run play" at the same time, but none of these models are simple.
(also reading about this hidden ball trick it seems it can involve the simple masking of the player to confuse the defense about where it is going, it's then not necessarily a trickery about simulating a kind of action by another kind of action, it can be the same action in a different direction ? You simulate a pass but you actually do a pass ? ) author TomT0m / talk page14:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is also has role in modeling (P6530) but that does not express the same relation "has role in modeling X" does not mean that it's a model for X ... but rather that it is a part of a model for X.
Other properties (by User:Fgnievinski like represents/represented by are misused to represent this relationship.
User:Push-f, the creator of the last proposal, withdrew the proposal with reason I withdraw my proposal in favor of using statements like Xhas use (P366)scientific modeling (Q1116876)of (P642)Y, and the discussion was closed by a property creator asking for a new one, which is this one. There were only support the property.
I reopen because the model proposed by Push-f is using of (P642) qualifier on a usageSearch statement which is deprecated, and because I think this is a genuine relationship, very common and many examples that deserves its own property. It's also simpler, note that the model does not seem to be much used only 4 results to a corresponding query.
Being a proposer you don't have to vote for your own proposal. Please note that having your own vote does not give you an advantage when creating a property. See WD:PCC. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma Please consider the circumstances, this is actually a reopening of an old proposal I actually voted for. It's recreated, actually, after the property creator closing which is actually questionable because the initial proposer closed it with a bad idea and the proposal actually had only support. Creating a regular proposal on Wikidata is usually an arduous journey, please don't be a cold actor making this actually more difficult. We have very few reviewers in a lot of cases, and this is the third attempt for this important and legitimate one. author TomT0m / talk page15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No/reject. I'm responding to the posting over at WPPhys. My knee-jerk reaction is that this is a terrible idea, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and/or science in general. If you're going to link spacetime to general relativity, then what happened to Newton or Cartan or MOND? Are you pronouncing all these other theories of spacetime to be bad/wrong/rejected? What about Kaluza Klein? Is your space-time 5-dimensional, with hidden dimensions? Kaluza-Klein did their work in the 1920's; Einstein himself spent decades on it, its a foundational concept in string theory, but you're going to reject it because you've got some preconceived notion about spacetime that matches what the folks on reddit talk about? As to the equations themselves: they also apply to fluid mechanics, and to configurations of lattices, e.g. the black hole solution (schwarzschild solution) is a soliton, that is, a Lax pair, (Belinski-Zakharov), so are you going to link Lax pairs to gravitation? Or to water (KdV eqn) or to nuclear physics (say, Skyrme model)? The QCD confinemnt of the skyrme model, the quarks can be unconfined by shrinking Einstein spacetime to about 3-4 times the size of a nucleus, at which point, the Skyrmion kind of melts and releases all the quarks: confinement is gone, due to high local space-time curvature. So is nuclear physics all about space-time, now? Yes, I've written a tirade here, but the point is to show that classifying relationships in the sciences are necessarily vague and tenuous when they're correct, and inhibit forward progress, becoming dangerous when enforced by some cultural committee. 67.198.37.1617:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can link several theories to one kind of objects, this is not a monopolistic claim, no problem with that, it's just a claim about what theory is about what kind of object is all. You can link both Newton and MOND and Cartan to "spacetime" if that's relevant. author TomT0m / talk page17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will you link space-time to 5-dimensional spacetime? There are several kinds of 5D spacetimes: the KK one, mentioned above, but also the recent results on 5D black holes with naked singularities and Cauchy horizons. They're two different kinds of 5D spacetimes. Then of course, the affine lie algebras are 26-dimensional spacetimes, unless they're fermionic, in which case they're 10-D. The obvious solution is to say "if wikipedia article X has a wikilink to topic Y in it, then X and Y are related". But to try to then say "the relationship between X and Y is that of theory and model" runs afoul of the details. 67.198.37.1618:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(p.s. looking at above examples: the descriptive set theory people and the reverse mathematics people might not like your link of peano axioms to the non-negative integers. Seems like a flawed understanding of what the peano axioms are trying to do, and what they are actually used for, in day-to-day applications: how people actually use them, and what they are good for, as opposed to the ostensible "thing they describe": They describe a fragment of set theory; that fragment has a model which happens to include the non-negative integers. But what matters are the results of model theory, and not that one possible model just happens to be the non-negative integers.) 67.198.37.1617:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Peano axioms are used to define the integers, in a formal model, and addition, etc. The fact that there are other models is not a problem for this property, as already said before.
As for your previous point, this property is not intended to solve all the problems nor to model every possible relationship like "this article as a link to that other one", this is nonsense. But yes, N-dimensional theories about spacetime may be link to space and time, what would precisely be the problem ? author TomT0m / talk page18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(anyway, the sentence about the links on Wikipedia pages seems to imply you are kind of against the whole Wikidata idea, so … why coming here commenting, upset about me talking about this on enwiki ?) author TomT0m / talk page19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could somebody explain why the property 'objet of a theory' is not sufficient to link a theory to an object ? The idea of model (in science) has been much discussed in history of science and it is historically strange to apply this for instance to the Peano axioms. Perhaps, one should change the name of "object of a theory" to "important object in or for a theory", but "model" for me describes a very specific type of link (perhaps too specific for a property in Wikidata, as it may lead to debates, depending on one's epistemologic views). Thank you in advance. --Cgolds (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cgolds What property are you referring to precisely is the study of (P2578) (it's intended to link academic fields to their objects) ? has role in modeling (P6530) (which may fit but I find the example stranges, it links gene items to deseases) ? I can't find anything searching that label.
I understand that in "model theory" in maths indeed this is kind of reversed, as the "specification" (the axioms) and the objects that have theses properties (natural numbers for peano axioms) are called "models" of the theory, so yes, the term seems to be a bit off but this is the exception ? If we look at the article about « fr:Modèle scientifique », although there are not many sources, kind of reflects what is usually understand as a scientific model nowdays, and it's in that sense I think it's used.
For I dug a bit, because the "gene - disease" relationship seems way to broad, a gene is not by itself a model or a theory for a disease in any sense, that's why they renamed it : see this related discussion on the OBO ontology in link with the discussion on Wikidata about the proposal. They are talking about more specific relationships if needed, in relationship with Wikidata, and I think that's exactly related to this proposal. A gene may indeed "has a role" in modeling a disease, but it's usually far from being a whole model by itself ? They broadened the label from "is model of" to "has role in modelling" out of practical problems it seems, because it was in practice or they wanted to use it like that. I think Wikidata is larger so I think we could benefit from clarity. author TomT0m / talk page10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TomT0m I was indeed refering to objet de la discipline (P2578), but if I understand you well, this property means "what is the object(ive) of the discipline" (and it would have been better to call it "subject" then :), not "an important object of the discipline". Or is your problem with "discipline" instead of "theory" ? It is true that "model" is not very appropriate for mathematics, but even in physics you may have a lot of discussions (see above !). For the (general) relativity theory, I understood that it modelizes gravitation more than spacetime (although of course the issue theory vs model(ization) is already a difficult topic). We are looking for for "object playing an important role in" or something of the kind. Cgolds (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To model scientific events we have a number of properties in use. I cannot find properties suitable to represent the number of paper submissions nor number of accepted papers. We (@NandanaM: among others) would like to add such information, so here is the suggestion for a "number of submissions" property. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 08:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Sure - are we limiting this to conferences (journals get submissions too but I'm not sure how you would count them since it's sort of continual)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is most relevant for conferences and workshops. For journals the number is probably not available. If available it would be over a period, e.g., year. I do not know whether there would be other types where "number of submissions" would be relevant? Song competitions? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 15:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the property is not constrained to single events, then the handling for journals must be made explicit, e.g. "(for journals, number is per year)" in the description. Also a reference constraint is probably advisable. Swpb (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To model scientific events we have a number of properties in use. I cannot find properties suitable to represent the number of paper submissions nor number of accepted papers. We (@NandanaM: among others) would like to add such information, so here is the suggestion for a "number of accepted submissions" property. For the proposal of the parallel property see Wikidata:Property_proposal/number_of_submissions
A lot of organizations, clans, families, individuals have their own tartan. Tartans can be done the same way how coat of arms and flags are encoded into Wikidata.
A lot of organizations, clans, families, individuals have their own tartan. Tartans can be done the same way how coat of arms and flags are encoded into Wikidata.
Comment many clans have multiple "official" tartans (dress, hunting, ancient, etc.) I would suggest removing the single value constraint and recommend using a qualifier "object has role" for these. PKM (talk) 21:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We need a way to reflect the total value of loans given to clients currently outstanding by a bank, this is an important data item for banks and some other financial institutions. --Fordaemdur (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From the name it's not clear whether it counts loans in both direction or only one direction. It would be good to have a more clear name and a description. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:00, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ChristianKl, thanks for mentioning that. I'm a bit new to properties creating process so thank you for helping out. total value of loans given by a bank to customers is what i'm referring to. I'm open to better description ideas as well. For loans received by a bank we already have total liabilities (P2138). --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:22, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question I have several comments/questions about this proposal, which seems incomplete.
As a non-subscriber, I can't find any way on the web interface to search for a comany profile. https://pitchbook.com/profiles works, but that is not obvious. How would an editor unfamiliar with this site find a profile? You might add source = https://pitchbook.com/profiles to address this question.
The sample external ID you provide for BlackRock should be the variable part of the actual formatted link https://pitchbook.com/profiles/advisor/10768-06, so "advisor/10768-06", not "Blackrock company profile".
The part of the link after /profiles/ is variable, for example https://pitchbook.com/profiles/company/46488-07 for SpaceX. Therefore the formatter link should be https://pitchbook.com/profiles/$1 and the regex should allow alpha, numbers, hypens, and slashes, so \d+. (It would be even better to list all the possible values for business type if you know what those are - see the formatting for Encyclopædia Britannica Online ID (P1417). I have seen advisor, company, investor, limited-partner, person.) Also note that the "numeric" part of the ID may include a letter.
Cbonds is an important financial database for public companies, especially useful for companies in Russia and other post-Soviet countries. --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
entity that a transferred item is initially associated with, before this process associates it with another entity (the destination of transfer) [aliases: source / sender]
source (Q31464082) and recipient (Q20820253) are fundamental thematic roles in transfers (i.e., processes where an item starts off associated with one entity and becomes associated with another), and we do not currently have a simple way to express them. The only existing approach is to assign sources/recipients as values of participant (P710), uses (P2283), has part(s) (P527), or another property, and then to qualify those statements with object has role (P3831). participant (P710) is currently limited in scope to "person[s], group[s] of people or organization[s]", and uses (P2283) and has part(s) (P527) are vague and ill-suited to these roles. This approach is awkward and inconsistently used on main statements, and does not work at all when a source or destination is given by a qualifier.
We currently have some properties for specific types of transfers, such as addressee (P1817) for correspondence and start point (P1427) and destination point (P1444) for travel. The proposed properties would take those as sub-properties, while generalizing to all types of transfers, including physical, digital, legal, etc. (Note: although transfers may involve a wide variety of relations, including physical possession/containment, inclusion as a part, ownership, employment, etc., that does not mean the scope of the proposed properties is unlimited: values of "source" and "destination" must fulfill those thematic relations in context. In other words, there must be an item that is initially associated with the "source", and that comes to be associated with the "destination" in the same way, as a result of the process described by the subject.)
The item being transferred may be specified with uses (P2283) where necessary (leaving open the possibility of a future property for the thematic role of "item transferred"). It should be noted that the source of a transfer is not necessarily the cause of the transfer.
(By the way, there is another active proposal, "Event role", that seeks to link all sorts of events to the roles therein. The present proposal seeks to link transfers (a specific type of event) to the entities that occupy the specific roles (inherent to transfers) of source and destination. So these proposals are not competing, and are in fact complimentary. Swpb (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC))[reply]
Support seems sensible. Although uses (P2283) to model the thing transferred is a bad idea in my opinion, as it mixes the end and the means. To me "uses (P2283)" could be used to denote the mean, such as "electronic network" and the things being exchanged should have its own property. author TomT0m / talk page19:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, agree that should have it's own property, but I didn't want to complicate this proposal. Could add that to the proposal if you think it would help get this through. Swpb (talk) 20:31, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The video games have different types of rhythm mechanic. They can be divided into three or even four categories: turn-based, real-time, persistent (and even medidative or zen, when the goal of the video game is to relax the player).
Nevertheless, there is not a real specific property for this. That's why I suggest this one.
Nota: in French, we could translate it by "rythme narratif", but if you have a better suggestion, please let me know. :)
Here too, game mechanics (P4151) shouldn't be used as I said before. Regarding the way it can be inferred from the genre, sometimes, a same game can refer to two types of 'pacing'. FF12 have a "real-time" pacing when you are walking over the world and a "turn-based" when you fight agains monsters. So, a genre is not always a good way to infer the 'pacing'. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the description for this should be more specific / clearer. This meaning of the term has nothing to do with competence (Q5156288) for example. --Middle river exports (talk) 21:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. I don't get this. It doesn't make sense to me. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Strong oppose this makes no sense. I feel like I'm going mad... BrokenSegue (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Oppose Example 1 makes the opposite relationship that examples 2 and 3 do. Which way are you proposing? Please fix the examples. Lectrician1 (talk) 12:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
Support -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Question Is this intended to contrast with/be complemented by a (potential future) property patient of action (Pyyy)? For example:
WikiProject Properties has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. Lectrician1 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Not done no support for creation --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints
Wait to hear from the dev team. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Strong support Useful for some Lexemes. Solaris5296 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Conditional support when phab:T206973 is implemented - it's clearly important data but neither string data type or point in time are currently acceptable for this. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Done: date popularized (P12643) --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 11:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
simulates (P12328) 
to model the thing transferred is a bad idea in my opinion, as it mixes the end and the means. To me "uses (P2283) 
Weak oppose This can often be inferred from the genre. If applicable, genre (P136)turn-based strategy video game (Q2176159) or genre (P136)real-time strategy (Q208189) should be used instead. Use game mechanics (P4151)persistent world (Q736958) for consistency with game mechanics (P4151)open world (Q867123). Dexxor (talk) 06:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
