Wikidata:Property proposal/contributed to
contributed to published work edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Person
| Description | person is cited as contributing to published work (qualify with "subject has role" (P2868)) |
|---|---|
| Represents | creative work (Q17537576) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | human (Q5) |
| Example | John Morley (Q333519) → Dictionary of National Biography (Q1210343); subject has role (P2868) → writer (Q36180) |
| Planned use | fix up DNB contributors; use where people are cited as contributors to journals, newspapers, and other published works |
| See also | considered inverse to contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) |
- Motivation
(It would be great if the experts can add missing parameters.)
Where a person has contributed to serial publications of some type (newspapers, journals, etc.) there needs to be the ability to record that, and extract that. Enables at a person level for WPs or WSes to note in infoboxes/templates to where a person added works like encyclopaedic and biographical works (eg. Dictionary of National Biography).
Sorts of qualifiers could be time (years of contributions).
Needed so to resolve some of the misuse of contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) where the use has been back-to-front, eg. where it has been used on a person page, eg. John Morley (Q333519), so P767 is a mirror property. We should be looking to fix where we have existing person contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) → works/books/... and look to possible constraints. To note that we cannot rely on this parameter being reversed as a means to extract required information. A person contributes a work to a journal a newspaper, to — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
- @ChristianKl, Micru: Not sure what to do to give this a shove. As contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) is already misused in circumstances expressed to do this task, I believe that shows it is a needed property. I know that it isn't a terribly sexy proposal, and it would be used by the WSes as templated data. Is my proposal lacking something to get attention? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:16, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- And for clarity, the aliases that I would look to have are contributed to ... 1)book 2) series 3)journal 4)publication — billinghurst sDrewth 04:20, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Support Seems reasonable to me.--Micru (talk) 07:25, 24 April 2017 (UTC)- This seems like a property that's not Wikidata specific and where other people likely already have thought about how to model the relationship and how to name the relationship. As a result the bar for me supporting the proposal is higher than the bar for another authority control proposal.
- I would feel good about supporting the property if you search for prior art and make the case that your way of model the property is in line with prior art or you have arguments for why your way of modelling it is better. ChristianKl (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: Publishers call them "contributors" (EB) and "writers" (DNB) and "authors" (journals) which is how they are from their perspective, and how the P767 is described. How are they named in the reverse? "contributed to", "wrote to", "published in" all depending on the context. In English it is more neutral, and more inclusive of uses to say "contributed to". I am definitely open to any suggestions to improve this, though have not heard any, and I don't want the existing confusion to propagate. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: Okay, with that background the name seems good. I think it would be good to have a slightly more expansive description to prevent the property from being used in contexts for which it isn't intended. ChristianKl (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: my first property proposal, so unsure how tight or how loose these should be. I know the use that WSes/I need which is around the writing, and we already have terms for illustratrion, translation, editing, all well-formed ideas. I could see that for something like Funk and Wagnall's Jewish Encyclopedia all of the editorial panel could be contributors, which one could qualify the role.
- contributed to published work
- person contributed to publications, including journals, newspapers, book series, etc.
- That said, would we rule in or rule out 1) John Smith founded Institution A; John Doe, Mary Smith and Frances Doe all contributed to Institution A's founding. If it is wanted to be kept tight for written works that enWS uses we could add the words "publication/published" and then let others argue for any expansion. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:40, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- The goal of the property proposal process if to define the property well enough that everybody who reads the property gets roughly understands the proposed property the same way. The property can be defined widely or narrowly but the important thing is that it's clear what's supposed to be in and what's out. The property name and description get's translated and other languages might not have an exact equivalent of the meaning of the English word "contributed". Having a more expansive descriptions helps people who translate the word to pick the most fitting term in their language.
- Let's say Bob proofread the book that that Alice wrote. Did he "contribute to" the book in the sense of this proposal?
- If you mark members of the editorial panel with this property, maybe there should be a qualifier used to specify that they contributed in this way?ChristianKl (talk) 17:01, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: then I will keep it specific and overt, key items will be "cited", "contributed to", "published work". I think that this allows for all published medium, though focuses more on the printed word. Where should I be noting that means of contribution can be qualified?
Updating above: name, description, subject item, domain (as I best understand them). I am hoping that the other published medium are all subsidiary to creative work (Q17537576) though you may have a better idea there. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: This looks like progress :) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1038 is an example of another property that's usually qualified and where the recommendation is in the description. It would also be good to add the information to the example. subject has role (P2868) is the property that comes to my mind in this case to be used for qualifying. ChristianKl (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @billinghurst: This looks like progress :) https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property:P1038 is an example of another property that's usually qualified and where the recommendation is in the description. It would also be good to add the information to the example. subject has role (P2868) is the property that comes to my mind in this case to be used for qualifying. ChristianKl (talk) 10:52, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl: then I will keep it specific and overt, key items will be "cited", "contributed to", "published work". I think that this allows for all published medium, though focuses more on the printed word. Where should I be noting that means of contribution can be qualified?
- @ChristianKl: Publishers call them "contributors" (EB) and "writers" (DNB) and "authors" (journals) which is how they are from their perspective, and how the P767 is described. How are they named in the reverse? "contributed to", "wrote to", "published in" all depending on the context. In English it is more neutral, and more inclusive of uses to say "contributed to". I am definitely open to any suggestions to improve this, though have not heard any, and I don't want the existing confusion to propagate. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
- Support per the nomination. The inverse property is being misused to express this relationship and there is no correct way to currently do it. Thryduulf (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@billinghurst, ChristianKl, Thryduulf: Done. In my opinion this property is well justified. Jonathan Groß (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)