Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic


Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Computing Lexeme

See also edit

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Search if the property already exists.
  2. Search if the property has already been proposed.
  3. 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.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Read Wikidata:Creating a property proposal for guidelines you should follow when proposing new property.
  6. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below by editing the two templates at the top of the page to add proposal details.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the creation of the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See property creation policy.

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 2024/02.

General edit

competency edit

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
DescriptionStates the competencies one needs to acquire after taking up a course or class or a lesson
Data typeItem
Domainproperty in education (Q8434)
Example 1Critical thinking (Q113465749)Science Curriculum for Basic 7 (Q113646657)
competency
  Critical thinking (Q113465749)
0 references
add reference


add value
Example 2Mathematics Curriculum for Basic 7 (Q113556827)CompetencyCritical thinking (Q113465749); When a student finishes his/her studies in Mathematics Curriculum for Basic 7, s/he is suppose to have developed a competency called Critical thinking
Example 3English Language Curriculum for Basic 7 (Q115800033)CompetencyCreativity (Q113465748); When a student finishes his/her studies in English Language Curriculum for Basic 7, s/he is suppose to have developed a competency called Creativity
Planned useA reference to the expected competency. Read more about the data model WD4E Data Model. Check out How it is used in the test environment Q223773.
Wikidata projectWikidata for Education

Motivation edit

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[reply]

Discussion edit

  • @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[reply]
    Thank you for this feedback. I am working on it and I should be done with them soon. Your feedbacks are really helping me here. Andrews Lartey (talk) 17:01, 18 March 2022 (UTC)Reply[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)Reply[reply]
    This has been worked on, you can take a look @Middle river exports Dnshitobu (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose. I don't get this. It doesn't make sense to me. Thierry Caro (talk) 13:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
    @Thierry Caro I am checking up on you if the updated examples are clear for your understanding or if you still have new queries. Dnshitobu (talk) 09:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
  •   Comment Could has effect (P1542) be used instead? Abbe98 (talk) 14:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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.
    The Competency property will be used for classes, curriculums and units in a curriculum Dnshitobu (talk) 22:40, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    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[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[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[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[reply]
  •   Comment @Abbe98: I think has effect (P1542) doesn’t full capture the semantics of what this proposed property is meant to express: That the ‘effect’ is specifically in the ‘attendant’/‘patient’ of the subject (the course or program) of statements using this proposed property. However, we might consider making this proposed property subproperty of (P1647) of has effect (P1542). ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Comment Looking at this and Dnshitobu (talkcontribslogs)’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[reply]
    @BlaueBlüte Thank you for the detailed observations. We will discuss it and better up going forward. Dnshitobu (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Strong oppose this makes no sense. I feel like I'm going mad... BrokenSegue (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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. ChristianKl12:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.
    Please have look at the following queries:
    Five uploaded curricula data
    Science Curriculum data on Listeria
    Social Studies curriculum for Basic 7 Dnshitobu (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  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)Reply[reply]

Lectrician1 Thank you sir, It will be fixed Dnshitobu (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Base Units edit

   Under discussion
DescriptionProperty that lists the different units that a unit is derived from, would be useful to add a qualifier for the exponent of each unit ie. metre per second (Q182429)second (Q11574) → -1.
Data typeItem
Domainunit of measurement (Q47574)
Allowed valuesinstance of (P31)unit of measurement (Q47574)
Example 1metre per second (Q182429)metre (Q11573)
metre per second (Q182429)second (Q11574)
Example 2pound-foot (Q16859309)foot (Q3710)
pound-foot (Q16859309)pound (Q100995)
Example 3cubic metre (Q25517)metre (Q11573)
Example 4newton (Q12438)kilogram (Q11570)

newton (Q12438)metre (Q11573)

newton (Q12438)second (Q11574)
Planned useAdd better definitions of units and relations to other units
See alsounit symbol (P5061), conversion to SI unit (P2370), conversion to standard unit (P2442)

Motivation edit

Units are important in many fields and it is important to have some kind of structure to help add relationships between units. The more structured knowledge there is for units the more useful quantities can become and be better used together. -I is chan (talk) 01:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion edit

has part(s) (P527) doesn't seem like a proper use case for this because for metre per second (Q182429)has part(s) (P527)second (Q11574) technically second (Q11574) is being removed from the unit rather than being "a part of" it, perhaps it could have a negative quantity (P1114) quantifier? -I is chan (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think has part(s) (P527) fits fine. Units that are composed of several other units are also called "compound units". E.g. [1] says "speed is a compound unit as it is defined using both distance and time". So the other units are all part of the definition. --Push-f (talk) 20:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
defining formula
   
0 references
add reference


add value
in defining formula
   
symbol represents volt
0 references
add reference
   
symbol represents metre
0 references
add reference
  and so on…
0 references
add reference


add value
Dexxor (talk) 17:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ISQ dimension (P4020) is not of type item, so not the same. Midleading (talk) 04:49, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

source of action edit

   Under discussion
Descriptionqualifier to be used when the object of a statement is an action, to qualify what's the source of the action
Data typeItem
Example 1cp (Q305946)has use (P366)copying (Q1156791)action applies tocomputer file (Q82753)source of actionlocal host (Q115517044)destination of actionlocal host (Q115517044)
Example 2
Example 3
  • git clone (Q115519944)has use (P366)cloning of a repository (Q115520056)action applies to git repository (Q115520005)source of actionlocal host (Q115517044)destination of actionlocal host (Q115517044)
  • git clone (Q115519944)has use (P366)cloning of a repository (Q115520056)action applies to git repository (Q115520005)source of actionremote host (Q115517047)destination of actionlocal host (Q115517044)
  • Example 4
  • pitch (Q1063937)source of actionpitcher (Q1048902)
  • pitch (Q1063937)destination of actioncatcher (Q1050571)
  • Example 5
  • Alaska Purchase (Q309029)has part(s) (P527)transfer (Q315364)action applies to Alaska (Q797)source of actionRussian Empire (Q34266)destination of actionUnited States of America (Q30)
  • Example 6
  • data import into Wikidata (Q107661232)destination of actionWikidata (Q2013)
  • See alsofrom language & to language

    destination of action edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionqualifier to be used when the object of a statement is an action, to qualify what's the destination of the action
    Data typeItem
    Example 1see #source of action
    Example 2see #source of action
    Example 3see #source of action

    See #source of action for the motivation and discussion.

    Motivation edit

    Many computer tools has use (P366) is to copy/move/transfer something from A to B.

    It would be nice to be able to qualify statements as shown in the above examples.

    Note that the examples use the qualifier action applies to , which has not been created yet.

    --Push-f (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    (Note: domain expanded (with support of proposer) to source/destination for all types of transfers (physical, digital, legal, etc.). Swpb (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    As wide as the scope might be, it is not unlimited, and your examples are outside it. Political unions and dissolution are changes, but they are not "transfers" in in the way you're trying to express them. That's why your statements make no sense: in the second, you are saying that the Soviet Union (Q15180) was somehow "transferred" (it wasn't, it ceased to exist) "from" Belovezh Accords (Q76986) (this is a cause, not a source) to the successor states. That is not how these properties are meant to be used, and your ability to misuse them in this way doesn't convince me that such misuse is likely to be a problem. You could express a transfer of political power as: dissolution of the Soviet Union (Q5167679)has part(s) (P527)peaceful transition of power (Q100235323)source of actionSoviet Union (Q15180)destination of action[various succesor states]has immediate cause (P1478)Belovezh Accords (Q76986). There may be better ways to express that, but the point of the proposal is that some facts don't have a better way to express them: you can't well use participant (P710) and object has role (P3831) with scp (Q115516614) because local host (Q115517044) and remote host (Q115517047) are not a "person, group of people or organization", unless you're willing to expand participant (P710) to entities that lack agency. Swpb (talk) 18:11, 8 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Swpb: I agree with SM5POR that the proposed property—as currently described—is likely to be (mis)used in ways other than transfers. Perhaps we could create constraints to indicate when the proposed property is misused, but it would be better to improve the proposal so that it is more clear what is being modeled. To that end, I propose that we change the label to "source of transfer" (or perhaps "origin of transfer") and "destination of transfer" if we are restricting the scope of the property only to transfers. (@Push-f: please also see my suggestion, here.) — The Erinaceous One 🦔 07:46, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    YES. "Source of transfer"/"destination of transfer" would go a long way to clarifying the scope. Let's make that change if Push-f approves. Swpb (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Perhaps confusing our respective arguments a bit, like Swpb I'm actually not that worried about potential misuse, but rather about the constraints implied by the suggested three-way "transfer" model (source/object/destination). Like Swpb has argued for a generic destination role property to replace various special-purpose properties such as "addressee", I'm arguing for a generic role property, which happens to exist in the form of object has role (P3831), to replace all three properties suggested here, letting the role be indicated by a unique Q-item rather than by a unique property. I admit also that participant (P710) isn't a particularly good label for a non-acting object, but a better one could easily be defined and substituted for it.
    Splitting the single statement with three or four qualifiers into three statements with one qualifier each has other advantages too, such as the ability to add more qualifiers and references to each object statement, rather than just to the monolithic transfer statement. What if either or both the seller and the buyer each have their own broker to negotiate their mutual real estate deal? We don't want more paired properties like from-broker and to-broker, from-date and to-date etc to deal with either side of the initial source/destination pair. SM5POR (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The separate statements model does offer more flexibility with qualifiers, but I see two problems with it. First is the already mentioned limits of participant (P710), and I'd like to see more specifics on handling that: if the solution is to expand participant (P710), we might get pushback, and if the solution is a different property, I'd like to know which one would work, or if a new one is needed. Second, by needing to qualify with object has role (P3831), it becomes impossible to specify the participants and their roles as qualifying statements, which is necessary if the transfer being discussed is the object of a main statement, rather than the subject item. In the present examples, these "participant" statements could reasonably be made about the subject item, but I don't think this is universally the case; I will try to come up with some examples when I get a little time. Swpb (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah, good, I appreciate that, and I guess it was your open-ended extension "all sorts of transfers (physical, digital, legal etc)" combined with the rather extreme case of a real estate transaction that is the Alaska purchase which led my extrapolation astray thinking "political, intellectual, philosophical, viral" and so on. The word all is pretty dangerous to use in a discussion about abstractions of non-tangible items, when not qualified with examples of what is (paradoxically) not part of all.
    So that may leave "political transfers" off the table then? The Alaska purchase is (together with perhaps the Louisiana purchase) a fringe one-of-its-kind thing, being seen as either a transfer of political territory or a real estate deal, and shouldn't be allowed to dictate the natural limits of the "transfer" data model. Then we have transfers of power (political or electrical), transfer of color between textiles in the laundry process, the ironed transfer of decorations on a piece of garment etc. Are either of these included in your view of "transfer"?
    What I'm aiming at is this: Either you have an abstract idea of what constitutes a generic concept of transfer, be it transfer (Q1811518), transfer (Q88539105), transfer (Q23009675), interchange (Q7833995), transfer (Q3537483), transfer (Q1195816) or transfer (Q315364), or you rely on the lexical definition of "transfer" which includes all of the above (but not necessarily similar things that aren't typically labelled "transfer" in English, such as transport (Q7590), transmission (Q118093), transmission (Q16259746), power transmission (Q3242194), electric power transmission (Q200928), travel (Q61509), move (Q56244401), relocation (Q2918584) and delivery (Q2334804), to name a few that may or may not be included in the first concept).
    While taking the first approach can be pretty tedious, requiring careful attention to detail, it's the preferred way of doing it, as the latter risks being applied differently depending on editor's native language, just like the confusion over the of (P642) prepositional qualifier shows.
    The problem isn't getting all these different kinds of "transfer" included in some item class and constraint definition, but rather making sure they can all use the same three-role action model prescribed by these properties (source/object/destination). It should work fairly well as long as we stick to physical items being transported from one place to another, but when we include also legal transfer of real estate (which has "seller" and "buyer" rather than "source" and "destination" as it doesn't actually move) or power transmission, things get a bit more complicated. Yet you have barely scratched the surface of the full set of actions that may benefit from these three properties SM5POR (talk) 08:06, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For the purposes of these properties, I see "transfer" as covering all the above, including the items that are not usually labelled as such in English. I see a transfer as any action x where an item y is originally associated with an item A (a location, a person or organization, a data storage medium, ...) and becomes associated with an item B (while not necessarily becoming disassociated with A). That's a pretty broad scope, but I think it's one where the roles of x, y, A, and B (action, object of action, source, destination) are clear and consistent, even without constraining the type of the items involved (except for possibly the constraint that A and B be of the same type, if that's not self-evident). Swpb (talk) 15:03, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @The-erinaceous-one, SM5POR:, would you like to give your final opinion? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 05:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ZI Jony:Given recent changes in my living conditions (changing residence), I find it hard to recapitulate my opinion in a discussion I participated in over a year ago. I'm still trying to bend work done on Wikidata towards making better use of Q items which we can have plenty of rather than increasing the number of properties. Hence my desire to use the objecthas role qualifierin moreplaces than it is used today. Rather than defining a property B to say that item C has the relation B to item A,I'd favor defining an item B to say that the item C as an object has the role B in relation to item A (the subject). To me, source, agent and destinations are role items, not properties, a transfer is an item too. avoid overloading the property space with roles thatmay be better defined as items. --SM5POR (talk) 11:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Swpb,@ZI Jony:I've been working n a set of alternative statements to replace the urrent examples provided with this proposal. For the moment, I have however only time to write a short summary,
    Crreate a number of actions that are subclass of (P279) copying (Q1156791)and define them as Q items with their distinguishing properties, such as
    copying local source to remote destination
    copying remote source to local destination
    copying local source to local destination
    copying remote source to remote destination
    Use these action items as objects of multiple has use (P366) statements on cp (Q305946) and scp (Q115516614) combined with suitable subject has role (P2868) and object has role (P3831) qualifiers referring to roles such as data source (Q121566744) and sink (Q7524520). Additional qualifiers may apply depending on context.
    I agree that it's probably best to keep territorial transfer out of te discussion, as different roles applyto them. I believe that the interpretation of "source of action" and "desination of action" is probably not intuitive withactions in general, and may be limited to transfer-like actions only, for which there are already suitable properties or role items (my preferred encoding of roles) defined. --SM5POR (talk) 15:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Push-f,@Swpb,@The-erinaceous-one,@ZI Jony:Due to it being a summary written in great haste (I was about to change residence and had to write a priority list for packing up and moving my stuff) I left my line of thought a bit incomplete. The qualfiers to add to each action should be like source of file (P7482) and product or material produced or service provided (P1056) (respectively), the roles, with the appropriate combinations of "local file" and "remote file" (new Q items) as values. IPICKED !product" rather than "destinaton", as the file being copied to need not exist prior to the action. It pops into existance as needed due to the action. --~~~~ SM5POR (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hreby correcting myself: thequalifiers subject has role (P2868) and object has role (P3831) won' necessarily find anyexplicit use is this example, <i just want to keep them around, as a complex action may involve multiple roles being performed by different agents.-- SM5POR (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @SM5POR: As it has been a year, I can forgive you for overlooking the expansion of the proposal. It is not practical to use object has role (P3831) and a new set of Q-items to cover the full scope of the proposal. The Q items you propose only apply to the first three examples, which cover a tiny portion of the proposed role. What would the other examples look like in your formulation? Swpb (talk) 21:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Swpb:Due to it being a summary written in great haste (I was about to change residence and had to write a priority list for packing up and moving my stuff) I left my line of thought a bit incomplete. The qualifiers to add to each action should be like source of file (P7482) and product or material produced or service provided (P1056) (respectively), the roles, with the appropriate combinations of "local file" and "remote file" (new Q items) as values. I picked "product" rather than "destinaton", as the file bing copied to need not exist prior to the action. It pops into existance as needed due to the action.
    The description refers to the object of a statement being an action. Do you maintain this notion, even as you seemed willing to limit it to transfers? Is a {{Q|1063937) an action or a transfer'?? If you include a statement essentially saying that {{Q|1063937)} is modelledas transporting something from A to B. You could add those qualifiers to map A and B to the actual source and destination items where I'd say the pitcher (Q1048902) has the source role andthe catcher (Q1050571) has the destination role using object has role (P3831) as the qualifier. Now, please do'nt take this as a serious counter-proposal. I'm expressing it this way only to demonstrate what information I consider missing from your examples, and to emphasize that there is no well-understood transfer concept generic enough to model all those actions together using a shared terminology. I'm here essentially using Wikidata statements to define the act of pitching by means of an analogy, and I think wou will agree that this is a rather cumbersome way of doing it. it could be done somewhere, say to supply an A.I. language model with machine-readable descriptions of real-world items using analogies, like explaining to a child that the president is to a country what the headmaster is to a school, but is Wikidata actually the right place to do this? I'm not sure, and this issue should probably be discussed in a broader context of what the strategic goal of Wikidata is meant to be before we start moving in that direction. Or is Wikidata simply the unpredicted and unplanned result of numerous unilateral decisions by mutually independent editors? Something like evolution itself?
    I'm challenging your premise stated near the end of the dicussion page: that There has long been a need to express general "source" and "destination" roles on Wikidata. I don'tagree there is such a need, or that the current specialized properties used in their place are somehow insufficient or inappropriate for this purpose. I could likewise argue that we have too many nouns in our language, and we could replace them with a generic noun thing with modifiers added to yield its different meanings in various contexts. Soon we will be talking aUI (Q2713618) (the language of space, based on a few root words combined with modifiers such as the generic verb do. I thus fail to see your rationale for this proposal, and I have based my objections on the strategy of trying to keep the number of properties down, in order to not dilute the property space. --SM5POR (talk) 09:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    object is edit

    Motivation edit

    APA has unclear semantics if A is a class, it could mean:

    1. an instance of A has a relation P to another instance of A (which may or may not be the same instance)
    2. an instance of A has a relation P to a different instance of A (which cannot be the same instance)
    3. an instance of A has a relation P to itself

    So I propose the introduction of an "object is" qualifier property with the values different from the subject (Q115705115) to denote #2 and the same as the subject (Q115705117) to denote #3.

    Why don't we just use object has role (P3831) or identity of object in context (P4626) for this? These are both non-restrictive qualifiers meaning they must not change the meaning of the qualified statement.

    While nature of statement (P5102) is a restrictive qualifier so it could be used, it is used for a very different purpose (qualifying the underlying circumstances of a statement, e.g. sometimes (Q110143752) or hypothesis (Q41719))

    --Push-f (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    agent of action edit

    Motivation edit

    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

    participant (P710) exists, however that's usually used usually for events and not actions. It also requires that you use object has role (P3831) to specify the role of the participant. For a relationship as critical and common as an agent is to the action they perform, we should have a dedicated property and not be required to add object has role (P3831)agent (Q24229398) to every single agent statement. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    subframe of edit

       Under discussion
    DescriptionProperty 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.
    Data typeItem
    Domainitem
    Example 1starting the car (Q117748121)subframe ofdriving to work (Q117748167)
    Example 2recruitment (Q899277)subframe ofoperating a business (Q117748249)
    Example 3undress (Q104418065)subframe ofshowering (Q13164396)
    Example 4parking (Q267917)subframe ofdriving to work (Q117748167)
    Example 5opening car hood (Q117748559)subframe ofrepairing car engine (Q117748470)
    Planned useI plan to use this alongside other proposed frame semantic properties for a wikidata project involving building a database of frames for Akkadian.

    Motivation edit

    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.

    Discussion edit

    • @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. ChristianKl19:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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. ChristianKl13:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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'.
      Matt Sinleqeunnini (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      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. ChristianKl02:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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. ChristianKl13:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[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).
      Note that now there are full examples of the proposal for 'frame element' property and 'lexical unit' property. Sinleqeunnini (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @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". ChristianKl16:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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? ChristianKl14:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
      Hello,
      I added more appropriate examples now. Sinleqeunnini (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @ChristianKl Hello. Can you please check if the examples are now satisfactory? Sinleqeunnini (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Yes, the examples are now clear. ChristianKl13:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    change of edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionproperty this process changes
    Data typeItem
    Domainprocess
    Example 1sea level rise (Q841083)change ofsea level (Q125465)
    Example 2heating (Q4311765)change oftemperature (Q11466)
    Example 3human ageing (Q116142766)change ofage of a person (Q185836)

    Motivation edit

    This relationship is currently modeled with of (P642) which we are trying to remove. Lectrician1 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    @User:SM5POR @Swpb, @Push-f   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)Reply[reply]

      Comment (  Support) Is this a main statement property or a qualifier? I see heating (Q4311765)subclass of (P279)increase (Q9073584)of (P642)temperature (Q11466), so I'm wondering if we can specify increase/decrease. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
    instance of (P31) as a qualifier to this? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Wd-Ryan No. Like it could be modelled as (these are main statements):
    sea level riseinstance ofincrease
    sea level risechange ofsea level
    OR, if I proposed a new property "direction of change" it could be:
    sea level riseinstance ofprocess
    sea level risechange ofsea level
    sea level risedirection of changeincrease Lectrician1 (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Do you mean subclass of (P279)? That's what they currently use, and they wouldn't be instances. Nonetheless,   Support. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 16:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    uhh yeah it should be subclass of (P279) Lectrician1 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.
    human ageing (Q332154) is not defined to be human specific and thus age of a person (Q185836) would be wrong here. ChristianKl15:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @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[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. ChristianKl17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[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. ChristianKl17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChristianKl fixed it to "human ageing". Lectrician1 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChristianKl Would you support if I rename it to "is change of"? Lectrician1 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @ChristianKl:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the response Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
    This exact concept is called "change of a quantity" as documented in Q103856215 and in external source [3]. The other related proposed property is called "rate of change of a quantity" (Q103864282)[4]. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    ‎patron deity edit

    Motivation edit

    Just like with saints I think it would be beneficial to be able to use this kind of property for gods and goddesses.StarTrekker (talk) 06:35, 16 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    @Jklamo: Did you come to any kind of consensus? Because if it should be used for deities or other patron spirits then I assume the name of the property would be changed.StarTrekker (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    exception to constraint (lexeme) edit

    Motivation edit

    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).

      Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

    Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    Identifiant Artcena edit

       Under discussion
    DescriptionIdentifier of cultural organizations in the ARTCENA database
    RepresentsARTCENA (Q60674444)
    Data typeExternal identifier
    Domainélément, Q105815710
    Example 1Q2851554ORG002239
    Example 2Q2868810ORG000170
    Example 3Q2815417ORG002157
    Sourcehttps://www.artcena.fr/annuaire
    Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
    Robot and gadget jobscollecter des données
    Wikidata projectQ60674444

    Motivation edit

    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[reply]

    Discussion edit

    ‎linguistic family of place name edit

       Under discussion
    DescriptionRelates 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.
    Data typeItem
    Example 1Chía (Q1093102)Chibchan (Q520478)
    Example 2La Calera (Q1440823)Indo-European (Q19860)
    Example 3Otanche (Q1577588)Cariban (Q33090)

    Motivation edit

    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 by Duityors (talk • contribs) at 18:22, October 30, 2023‎ (UTC).

    Discussion edit

      Notified participants of WikiProject Names

    ‎event role edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionitem that describes a role in an event class
    Data typeItem
    Domainoccurrence (Q1190554)
    Example 1communication (Q11024)event roleQ_communicator_in_communication
    Example 2communication (Q11024)event roleQ_content_in_communication
    Example 3communication (Q11024)event roleQ_hearer_in_communication
    Example 4eating (Q213449)event roleeater (Q20984678)
    Example 5eating (Q213449)event rolefood (Q2095)
    Sourceinitially based on PropBank, but extensible as needed
    Planned useadd to (possibly newly created) items describing occurrences/actions
    Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
    See alsopredicate for (P9970), has thematic relation (P9971)

    Motivation edit

    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.

    This is one of the five proposed properties that should be considered together: "event role", role in event, selectional preference, "event argument", and "argument type".

    Mahirtwofivesix (talk), on behalf of Anatole Gershman 21:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    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.
    You also suggest using has part(s) (P527) instead of the proposed "event role". The property has part(s) (P527) is defined as "object is a part of this subject" synonymous to "composed of". Examples include United States Congress (Q11268)has part(s) (P527)United States Senate (Q66096). While this property seems sufficiently general to cover event roles, a better solution may be to have the "event role" property as a more specific subclass of has part(s) (P527). This needs to be discussed further. --Anatole Gershman (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Swpb: thoughts on the above reply (and other replies to your concerns regarding the other proposals)? Mahir256 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    ‎role in event edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionevent class for which the item describes a role
    Data typeItem
    Allowed valuesoccurrence (Q1190554)
    Example 1eater (Q20984678)role in eventeating (Q213449)
    Example 2food (Q2095)role in eventeating (Q213449)
    Example 3 Q_communicator_in_communicationrole in event communication (Q11024)
    Example 4 Q_content_in_communicationrole in event communication (Q11024)
    Example 5 Q_hearer_in_communicationrole in event communication (Q11024)
    Sourceinitially based on PropBank, but extensible as needed
    Planned useadd to (possibly newly created) items describing event participants
    Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
    See alsopredicate for (P9970), has thematic relation (P9971)

    Motivation edit

    See our property proposal “event role” and project Events and Role Frames. This is the inverse of “event role”.

    This is one of the five proposed properties that should be considered together: "event role", "role in event", "selectional preference", "event argument", and "argument type".

    Anatole Gershman (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    •   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]
    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[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[reply]
    Reply See my reply in Wikidata:Property proposal/event role. --Anatole Gershman (talk) 22:54, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    event arguments and types edit

    event argument edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionitem that plays a role in an event instance; used with a qualifier "argument type"
    Data typeItem
    Domainevent instances
    Example 1assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentAbraham Lincoln (Q91)argument typeQ_assassinated_in_assassination
    Example 2assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentJohn Wilkes Booth (Q180914)argument typeQ_assassin_in_assassination
    Example 3caning of Charles Sumner (Q5032419)event argumentCharles Sumner (Q1066198)argument typeQ_victim_in_caning
    Example 4caning of Charles Sumner (Q5032419)event argumentPreston Brooks (Q1590822)argument typeQ_hitter_in_caning
    Planned useslowly introduce these to items for individual event instances
    See alsoparticipant (P710), participant in (P1344), participating team (P1923)

    argument type edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionqualifier for "event argument" specifying the event role item that describes the role
    Data typeItem
    Allowed valuesevent roles
    Example 1assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentAbraham Lincoln (Q91)argument typeQ_assassinated_in_assassination
    Example 2assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentJohn Wilkes Booth (Q180914)argument typeQ_assassin_in_assassination
    Example 3caning of Charles Sumner (Q5032419)event argumentCharles Sumner (Q1066198)argument typeQ_victim_in_caning
    Example 4caning of Charles Sumner (Q5032419)event argumentPreston Brooks (Q1590822)argument typeQ_hitter_in_caning
    Planned useslowly introduce these to items for individual event instances
    See alsoparticipant (P710), participant in (P1344), participating team (P1923)

    Motivation edit

    See our property proposal “event role” and project Events and Role Frames.

    Note the distinction between “event role” and "event argument". The former applies to event classes (e.g., "assassination (Q3882219)") and points to an item that describes the role (e.g., "assassin in assassination"). The latter applies to specific event instances (e.g., "assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)") and points to an item that plays the role in that event instance (e.g., "John Wilkes Booth (Q180914)"). While in the case of "assassination" property "practiced by (P3095)" could be used for the former and "perpetrator (P8031)" for the latter, other events use different properties for the roles or none at all. We are proposing a more general solution that applies to all events.

    The selectional preference statements attached to an event role item (e.g., "assassin in assassination") describe the preferred types of items for the event argument in the event instances (e.g., "human (Q5)" for the assassin in the instances of assassinations).

    These are two of the five proposed properties that should be considered together, in addition to "event role", "role in event", and "selectional preference".

    Mahirtwofivesix (talk), on behalf of Anatole Gershman 22:05, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    I looked at 'significant person' and 'object has role'- they seem very different from what we have in mind. Significant person seems to be exactly what it says, a way to highlight important personages. It only seems to apply to people. Object has role also seems to be designed for persons, and indicates professions or positions associated with occupations and tied to the significant person. Or at least, that is what I got out of the examples. I'll confess I don't think I really understand the definition of 'object has role.'
    We are aiming for "semantic roles" for eventualities, for events, processes, state, many of which are due to actions being performed. The "semantic roles" are quite general purpose, and can be filled, depending on the type of event or action, by persons, animals, plants, birds, concrete artifacts, ideas or even other events, or sometimes by all of the above. They are a "meta-language" that facilitates the discussion of general properties and participants of types of eventualities. Having said that, the suggestion by Swpb of "participant" is quite intriguing. That actually seems to fit pretty well and is very close to what we had in mind. My only concern here is that the definition seems to limit it to persons and organizations, whereas we would really like something broader, as I indicated above. How much havoc would be wreaked by broadening the definition a bit to include concrete and abstract objects as well? Is that doable? MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 03:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Reply First, I'd like to thank you for suggesting "argument role" instead of "argument type". I agree, it is better. The redundancy point needs a discussion. The proposed "event role" property semantics may indeed overlap with the semantics of some existing properties (I would not call it "step on"). But the existing properties are often event-specific and convey specific information, e.g., participant (P710) is defined as a person or a group of people participating in an event, target (P533) is defined as a target of an attack or military operation. The propose "event role" property does not carry any semantics besides pointing to an item that describes the role. The specific semantics of the role are described in the event role item rather than in the property. Wikidata has many properties with overlapping but not identical semantics. In my opinion, should not be a problem. --Anatole Gershman (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Hijri Date edit

       Under discussion
    DescriptionHijri Date of claim as written in the source
    Data typeString
    DomainAll time claims may take this qualifier
    Allowed values[\-]?[1-9][0-9]*(\-[0-1][0-9](\-[0-3][0-9])?)?
    Example 1Muhammad (Q9458) -> date of death (P570) -> "632-06-08" -> qualifier(Hijri date) -> "11-03-12"
    Example 2Avicenna (Q8011)-> date of death (P570) -> "1037" -> qualifier(Hijri date) -> "428-09" only year and month in original source
    Example 3Battle of Badr (Q486124) -> point in time (P585) -> "624-03-12" julian -> qualifier(Hijri date) -> "2-09-17"
    Sourcew:Islamic calendar
    Planned useAll the dates that were mentioned in the sources as a Hijri date must have this qualifier

    التحفيز edit

    There is no way to enter the Hijri date in Wikidata. Some users use refine date (P4241) qualifier and value elements are part of (P361) of Islamic calendar (Q28892), but this not the purpose of refine date (P4241) and reported as violations in Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P4241

    This new property will resolve this problem.

    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:

    • No zero year, the year before 1 is -1.
    • No leading zero required for year.

    Using string value make it easy to retrieve data and reformat it. --حبيشان (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    •   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[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.
      حبيشان (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      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[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[reply]
      @Ideophagous Customize the date under (add qualifier) and include the Hijri date feature, and it is preferable for the user to include a reference to it. Mohammed Qays (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]
      @Ideophagous If the source mentions the day of the week (as most of hostrical sources). day of week (P2894) can be added and it will give a clear point of time and exact confersion to other calendars. Adding warnig for missing the source is good but with exception of publication date (P577) because it will circular citation. حبيشان (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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[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[reply]
    •   Strong support.--RASHEEDYE (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •   Strong support عبدالعزيز علي (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •   Strong support أيمن 1974 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    •   per above Germartin1 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[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 Naji Talk 11:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Substances in the reference edit

    Motivation edit

    The proposed property would be helpful for readers to know what substances are covered in the reference work. --Leiem (talk) 12:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    This approach is fine, but seems incomplete in that it doesn't make the queryable connection to journal articles where these pathways were discussed does it? In the second case these links seem to be under [5] cites work (P2860), which seems to me to be a distortion of its original intent, since that is supposed to be between one scholarly work and another. --99of9 (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I might be misunderstanding you, but if we have a separate entity for the reaction, I think main subject (P921) (and described by source (P1343) for the reverse direction) are exactly the right properties to link it with the corresponding article. 2620:15C:161:107:9977:4897:47AD:5467 02:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It strikes me that the distinction you're making is really main subject (P921) vs. "secondary topic". There's nothing specific to the topics being chemical substances. 2620:15C:161:107:9977:4897:47AD:5467 02:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    ‎smells of edit

       Under discussion
    Data typeItem
    Domainproperty
    Example 1Amorphophallus titanum (Q431224)cadaver (Q48422)
    Example 2Osmeridae (Q166316)cucumber (Q2735883)
    Example 3cyanide (Q55076544)bitter almond (Q902704)
    Example 4Lutra lutra faeces (Q124382165)jasmine tea (Q60855)
    Example 5This Smells Like My Vagina (Q124382218)human vagina (Q4112929)
    Example 6binturong (Q213141)popcorn (Q165112)
    Source
    Planned useI plan to make a Mix n Match catalogue for this (my first) as I think that will support some of the scientific comparisons.

    I also plan to share the property with a range of projects, inc. ones related biodiversity and chemistry.

    Sensory data can be useful, as long as it is has a reference (so the context the sensory input comes from can be judged).
    Number of IDs in sourcen/a
    Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
    Robot and gadget jobsI don't think so
    See alsoI don't think there are similar sensory properties on Wikidata

    Motivation edit

    Sensory data can be an important aspect for identification and analysis, and currently Wikidata does not have properties that enable this to be included. There is an item for the sense, as well as for odours e.g. body odour, but there isn't the ability for relational comparison.

    • Previous discussion:
      • There is a property for perfume note, but this is specific to parfumery as a discipline, rather than broader similarities between substances and organisms.
      • There's also been a previous discussion to include odour as part of multilingual text datatype, but it was not adopted.
    • Concerns:
      • Could be open to vandalism
        • Mitigation: set the property so it can't used for human entities e.g. you can't add Sarah Smith (Q..?) smells of body odor (Q1328199)
      • Subjectivity:
        • Set parameter that a reference should be included to show where the comparison is discussed
        • Could also have requirement to have a qualifier for information

    I hope the community here will give this proposal consideration: the examples shown indicate the potential to draw comparison within the natural world, between scientific compounds, and indeed household products, to name a few.

    Note: this is my first property proposal and I found the process a little challenging. Please have patience if I haven't quite filled in the fields above appropriately. We all learnt to do this once; thanks in advance for your help!  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lajmmoore (talk • contribs) at 11:26, 30 January 2024‎ (UTC).Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit

    @Emu No, you got what I said exactly backwards. I'm saying don't delete or create any properties. Expand the existing property to what's proposed here, and withdraw this proposal once that's done. Swpb (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I see, thank you for clarifying! --Emu (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Support Property perfume note (P5872) refers to note (Q474423) (note/perfume note), which is an "subclass of" odor (Q485537) qualified only by positive connotation, which is an entirely subjective criterion, lacking any objectivity. (A perfume note/fragrance can be perceived as unpleasant depending on learned connotations and personal experiences.) If perfume note (P5872) were more broadly defined based on odor (Q485537), it would be completely redundant to the proposed property.--Cartoffel (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • I think this is a really good question. I couldn't decide between smells of and smells like for the proposal. I chose smells of for the proposal as it seemed to connect better to the exisiting and specific perfume note. Smell (whether of or like) seemed to be as a catch-all, which would then leave further space for classification. For example, all perfumes smell, but not all smells would be perfumes (which to me at least is associated with fragrance and is perhaps positive). Aroma or odour could work, but didn't seem to me (which I acknowledge is a personal perspective) as obvious as smell. Lajmmoore (talk) 11:13, 14 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    /Axel Pettersson (WMSE) (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      Comment A property for odor is important for fungi, since it is often given as an essential feature for identification.--Cartoffel (talk) 15:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Thanks @Cartoffel - I hadn't thought of that! Really excellent point. Perhaps @Gnangarra "has odour of" is a good phrase? Lajmmoore (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      Notified participants of WikiProject Biology

    @Mike Peel: Did you notice the counter-proposal by User:Swpb? What do you think of it? (I tend to oppose this new property for the reason outlined above.)--Cartoffel (talk) 09:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd be inclined to say create a new property and nominate the old one for deletion, rather than repurposing. Particularly since those involved in the creation of perfume note (P5872), @Nepalicoi, Teolemon, Pigsonthewing, haven't participated in this discussion yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Shouldn't we then   Wait to see what those users have to say, now that you've pinged them, instead of going ahead with a property creation that is very likely to be immediately followed by a deprecation of, and migration from, the existing property? Seems like that would save effort. Swpb (talk) 15:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    ‎latest end date edit

    Description(qualifier) latest date on which the statement could have ceased to be true (i.e., latest date beyond which the statement could no longer be true)
    Data typePoint in time
    Example 1Carrefour Socioculturel Au Vieux Théâtre (Q111846607)member of (P463)Association professionnelle des diffuseurs de spectacles RIDEAU (Q87727957)latest start date (P8555) = 10 April 2022; latest end date = 8 February 2024
    Example 2Centre culturel francophone de Vancouver (Q111857120)member of (P463)Association professionnelle des diffuseurs de spectacles RIDEAU (Q87727957)latest start date (P8555) = 10 April 2022; latest end date = 8 February 2024
    Example 3Le Petit Théâtre de Québec (Q111857177)member of (P463)Association professionnelle des diffuseurs de spectacles RIDEAU (Q87727957)latest start date (P8555) = 10 April 2022; latest end date = 8 February 2024
    Planned useMaintenance of membership data
    See alsoend time (P582), latest start date (P8555), earliest end date (P8554), latest date (P1326)

    Motivation edit

    When uploading a dataset to Wikidata, it's not uncommon to stumble upon time-sensitive data points that lack time stamps. For example, when uploading an association's member directory, the "member of" relationship is hardly ever explicitly documented in the source database. It is rather implicit: the presence of an entity in the catalog indicates a membership status is true at the time of consulting the catalog. In such a scenario, one can use latest start date (P8555) to state that the membership status was true at the time of upload but most likely started at some earlier point in time before the upload date. This works quite fine for an initial upload. However, we lack a property to document an approximate end time when performing subsequent data maintenance uploads. My colleagues and I stumbled upon this challenge when re-uploading RIDEAU members from the Scène Pro (Q111597636) dataset: a handful of organization no longer are members in good standing of Association professionnelle des diffuseurs de spectacles RIDEAU (Q87727957)... but we do not know at which precise point in time their membership status came to an end. We only that their membership status is false at the time of extracting and loading the data to Wikidata. For this and other similar purposes, we believe it would be useful to introduce an end time property mirorring latest start date (P8555).

    All three above examples are related to the Scène Pro data upload. If you have further examples from other use cases, please add them.

      Notified participants of WikiProject Performing arts --Fjjulien (talk) 15:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Note : See this related project chat topic. --Fjjulien (talk) 16:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit


    ICANNWiki page edit

       Under discussion
    Descriptionpage in the ICANNWiki wiki that describes the TLD
    Data typeExternal identifier
    Domaininstance of top-level domain (Q14296)
    Example 1.com (Q159371)ICANNWiki page.com
    Example 2.it (Q39155)ICANNWiki page.it
    Example 3.fly (Q20572675)ICANNWiki page.fly
    Example 4.green (Q24033032)ICANNWiki page.green
    Example 5.org (Q32131)ICANNWiki page.org
    Example 6.net (Q31835)ICANNWiki page.net
    Example 7.nyc (Q898354)ICANNWiki page.nyc
    Number of IDs in source~1500
    Implied notabilityWikidata property for an identifier that does not imply notability (Q62589320)
    Formatter URLhttps://icannwiki.org/$1
    Single-value constraintyes

    Motivation edit

    ICANNWiki (Q108423233) is a read-only wiki (only few people can edit it) with information about top-level domains. ZandDev (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Discussion edit