Wikidata:Property proposal/event arguments and types
event arguments and types edit
event argument edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | item that plays a role in an event instance; used with a qualifier "argument type" |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | event instances |
| Example 1 | assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentAbraham Lincoln (Q91) |
| Example 2 | assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentJohn Wilkes Booth (Q180914) |
| Example 3 | caning of Charles Sumner (Q5032419)event argumentCharles Sumner (Q1066198) |
| Example 4 | caning of Charles Sumner (Q5032419)event argumentPreston Brooks (Q1590822) |
| Planned use | slowly introduce these to items for individual event instances |
| See also | participant (P710), participant in (P1344), participating team (P1923) |
argument type edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Not done
| Description | qualifier for "event argument" specifying the event role item that describes the role |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Allowed values | event roles |
| Example 1 | assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentAbraham Lincoln (Q91) |
| Example 2 | assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentJohn Wilkes Booth (Q180914) |
| Example 3 | caning of Charles Sumner (Q5032419)event argumentCharles Sumner (Q1066198) |
| Example 4 | caning of Charles Sumner (Q5032419)event argumentPreston Brooks (Q1590822) |
| Planned use | slowly introduce these to items for individual event instances |
| See also | participant (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)
Discussion edit
- First, we may need an RFC if this want to replace a series of property including target (P533) and perpetrator (P8031). Second, we have a pair of similar properties: significant person (P3342) and object has role (P3831).--GZWDer (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reply We are not proposing to replace any existing properties, but you are right and “event role” and "event argument" might create redundancies with the existing properties. For example, assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentJohn Wilkes Booth (Q180914)
argument typeassassin (Q55983771) would convey the same information as the current assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)perpetrator (P8031)John Wilkes Booth (Q180914). For other events, it would be some property other than perpetrator (P8031) and for many events, there will be none. We are proposing a general solution that applies to all event classes and instances even though it would inevitably create some redundancies. --Anatole Gershman (talk) 23:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- Reply We are not proposing to replace any existing properties, but you are right and “event role” and "event argument" might create redundancies with the existing properties. For example, assassination of Abraham Lincoln (Q1025404)event argumentJohn Wilkes Booth (Q180914)
- 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)
Wait: Per GZWDer, these are going to step on a number of existing properties (participant (P710) is a big one not yet mentioned), and I think to give the proposal proper consideration, there needs to be a complete assessment of which properties will be made redundant, and what is to be done with their statements, e.g. migration to the new properties, or exceptions made in the new properties by constraints. Secondly, "argument type" should be renamed "argument role" to align with the other proposals, Wikidata:Property proposal/event role and Wikidata:Property proposal/role in event. Swpb (talk) 21:05, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
- 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)
Not done, @Mahirtwofivesix, Anatole Gershman, GZWDer, Swpb: no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
