Wikidata:Property proposal/describes a project that uses

describes a project that uses

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Done: describes a project that uses (P4510) (Talk and documentation)

Description	essential component or tool that was used in the project described in this publication
Data type	Item
Domain	publication (Q732577)
Allowed values	same as uses (P2283)
Example	Analytical study of a microfludic DNA amplification chip using water cooling effect (Q29788114) →CFD-ACE+ (Q5010594) LC3, a mammalian homologue of yeast Apg8p, is localized in autophagosome membranes after processing (Q24597817) → HeLa (Q847482) Observation of a new particle in the search for the Standard Model Higgs boson with the ATLAS detector at the LHC (Q30279457) → Large Hadron Collider (Q40605)
See also	cites work (P2860), uses (P2283)
Subproperty of	cites work (P2860) (property refers to an implicit citation)

Motivation

We currently have a discussion around https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/cell_line_used and https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/uses_software. From my point of view uses (P2283) is bad for the use case of describes what's "used" by a scientific paper as using it that way would stretch it's meaning and the constraints that are set. This property woud provide for a general solution that works for software, cell lines, hardware and whatever people will want to describe. ChristianKl (talk) 11:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support --Pasleim (talk) 11:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support but please add subject item, domain and allowed values of the property! Should it be for anything that has a "related research project"? Can people, projects, organizations, robots... be used with this property? What constraints make sense? An example from another discipline e.g. physics or humanities would also be helpful. -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment Shouldn't this be just "used by"? It could also be a raw material used in a manufacturing production process or creative process (felt-->hatmaking) etc. Jane023 (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
  • The connection is not between the item having a statement with this property but between a project mentioned/described/documented/run-by??? another item. The project uses something but the project has no item of its own. Nevertheless we need some clarification what "project" means in this context and which kinds of items are supposed to use this property. -- JakobVoss (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
    •  Comment @Jane023:See made from material (P186).Thank you David (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
      • I agree, the usage of raw materials in a manufacturing process seems out of scope. ChristianKl (talk) 15:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Support David (talk) 15:20, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
•  Comment How are we planning to relate this to citations? Software and datasets can be "used" by a research project with or without being "cited" by an article based on that project, but I think I'd prefer to see "cites" if the article actually does have such a citation, rather than this property, and would prefer to encourage authors to actually cite rather than not... I do  Support this property for linking an article with facilities, materials, or other items that are not "works". ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment the current label and description could be improved and some usage guideline is needed to exclude trivial cases (e.g. every research project would not be possible without coffee (Q8486)). Drawing the line is difficult, e.g. the project the led to publication of Ninety-five Theses (Q157506) used religious belief (Q2728698) but we don't want such statements, do we? Maybe the values of this statement must explicitly be mentioned in the publication? But then how to separate from cites work (P2860)? -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:14, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

We have many examples where you could theoretically add a lot of values. In practice people decide what kind of information a given item should hold on a case by case basis. If you have specific suggestions for improvement, feel free to add them. ChristianKl (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok so I'd focus on the property label and description. "related research project" sounds too fuzzy. How about "describes a project that uses" -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I changed the label to "describes a project that uses". That still leaves the need for a good description. ChristianKl (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

ChristianKl (talk) 11:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd create the property but some more positive comments would be helpful to justify -- JakobVoss (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@JakobVoss: Congrats to your new rights. We have a general rule to wait a minimum of 7 days from property proposal to property creation, so there's still a bit of time till the property can be created. ChristianKl (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Modeling publications, projects, and tools

In most cases the project (or similar) described in a publication does not get its own Wikidata item, so this property directly links the publication and a tool (or similar) used in the project. In some cases however we have three item, for instance:

• publication: Detection of the Free Neutrino: a Confirmation (Q34006473)
• project: Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment (Q386377)
• tool: Savannah River Site (Q2458173)

The property connects Detection of the Free Neutrino: a Confirmation (Q34006473) → Savannah River Site (Q2458173) but how should Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment (Q386377) linked with the tow other items? -- JakobVoss (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@JakobVoss: Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment (Q386377) uses (P2283) Savannah River Site (Q2458173) seems clear, that's why we're talking about this property proposal for when "uses" doesn't seem correct. I think Detection of the Free Neutrino: a Confirmation (Q34006473)main subject (P921) Cowan–Reines neutrino experiment (Q386377) makes sense, but main subject (P921) is used a bunch of different ways so maybe there's a better relationship for that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Done please make good use of it.
  --- Jura 08:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)