Wikidata:Property proposal/corporate author

corporate author edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Not done

Description	corporate body (like a organization, group or conference) responsible for the intellectual or artistic content of a document, corporate creator of a document
Represents	author (Q482980)
Data type	Item
Domain	work (Q386724)
Allowed values	organizations, meetings
Example	Daytime Protocol (Q1179179) → Internet Engineering Task Force (Q217082) World Development Indicators (Q8035640) → World Bank (Q7164)
Source	cf. for example http://libguides.tru.ca/c.php?g=194005&p=1418555
Planned use	As soon as tools like quickstatement allow it, I would like to add the full set of entries required for correct references for some of the statistics used in country infoboxes.
See also	author (P50), editor (P98), publisher (P123), creator (P170)

Motivation

Most bibliographic styles use not only authors who are persons but also corporate authors (organizations responsible for the content of a work). Many require the corporate author(s) as the first entry if there is no personal author given and don't repeat it if the work is for instance distributed through the webpage of the organization. There is at the moment no adequate property to indicate the corporate author: author (P50) (and editor (P98)) are restricted to persons. (Given the precedence of personal authors over corporate ones in at least some styles it would be helpful to keep the restriction and add the newly proposed property.) Creators and publishers might coincide, but often they do not. Indicating corporate authors with publisher (P123) makes it impossible to create bibliographic references in agreement with the styles mentioned. (Normally corporate authors are also no "Verlag" given as German translation of the property.) creator (P170) is not specific to documents and serves according to its description for artists of creative work. 123 (talk) 22:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

why is a author (P50) restricted to persons while creator (P170) is not restricted to persons, but companies as well? Shouldnt we accept a group of persons as authors? --Hannolans (talk) 07:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't know why the restriction was introduced. There was from Nov. 2014 to Sept. 2015 a discussion about it on the Property_talk:P50 page, two people in favor of removing it, one in doubt about it, but nothing was changed. Clearly we need the possibility to indicate organizations (or congresses etc.) as authors, as this is normal practice in most bibliographic styles. To have a property for persons as authors and one for organizations etc. has the advantage that it easier to distinguish between them programmatically, which is useful as corporate and personal authors are treated differently in at least some styles. 123 (talk) 13:48, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note that for importing from external databases, it seems easier to extend author (P50) to group of humans (Q16334295) as library systems seems to have those two types of authors mixed and it is hard to detect automatically if the author is a human or not --Hannolans (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - Library systems I know of provide the necessary information to distinguish between the two, but I admit that automatic imports are easier if one lumps the two categories together. One also would have to allow meeting (Q2761147) to cover academic conferences and conventions. 123 (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      - meeting (Q2761147) is a subclass of event (Q1656682) and not a legal entity. so who owns the copyright of work that has meeting (Q2761147) as author? --Hannolans (talk) 23:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        Authorship and copyright are related but different concepts. All too often copyright no longer belongs to the author. (But the publisher for instance.) However that may be, many bibliographic styles have special rule for conferences, like ISO 690: "If no person or organization can be identified as the creator ... of the proceedings of a single conference, the name of the conference should be treated as the first element." (The first element indicating the creator.) 123 (talk) 00:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support however, if it is decided to expand the domain of author (P50) I am fine with that as an alternative also. It looks from the discussion there that everybody agreed to expand it but the constraint was never changed? Perhaps we ought to ping some of the involved people? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it would be more appropriate to extend the domain of author (P50). — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 11:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

Notified participants of WikiProject Periodicals

The Source MetaData WikiProject does not exist. Please correct the name.

Support extending the domain of author (P50). - PKM (talk) 01:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support extending the domain of author (P50) - this restriction to Q5 is absurd... especially in case of collective pseudonym like Ellery Queen (Q586362). But it should also allow institutions. --Hsarrazin (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 18:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support But, what about the label? If this can be used for any organisation, then the word "corporate" might not be the best. Danrok (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@123, Hannolans, Fnielsen, PKM, Hsarrazin, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: I have set this to Not done because it appears that author (P50) now allows any instance of a subclass of organization to be an author. Please let me know if there's still a problem here; it looks like what this proposal was advocating has now been resolved. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]