Wikidata:Property proposal/in service of

‎in service of edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Not done

Description	qualifier, which must be used when a person is in the service of a settlement or institution through his or her position
Data type	Item
Domain	administrative territorial entity (Q56061), Prague (Q1085)
Example 1	position held (P39): deputy mayor (Q581817) in service of Timișoara (Q83404)
Example 2	P39: lord-lieutenant of a county (Q29865383) in service of Beszterce-Naszód County (Q794129)
Example 3	P39: undersecretary (Q766504) in service of Federal Ministry of Health of Germany (Q491566)
Example 4	P39: military attaché (Q302691) in service of Embassy of the United States, Athens (Q5369951)
Example 5	P39: head of department (Q1207353) in service of TCDD Subdivision 1 (Q382773)
Example 6	P39: sheriff (Q578478) in service of Hancock County (Q493112)
See also	occupation (P106), represents (P1268)

Motivation edit

I propose to create this qualifier to partially replace the significantly overloaded of (P642): in the service of this.

It can primarily be used as a qualifier for position held (P39) if the position is held by a person in the service of a settlement or organization. In these cases, P642 should be replaced.

Why not an employer (P108)?. In a significant part of the cases, it is a relationship in which the employer is different, and the entity in whose service the person holding the public office is different. For example: the employer of a member of parliament is the office of the parliament, while he is ‎in service of by an administrative unit (e.g. district, county, state). An administrative unit can have a locally elected leader (e.g. mayor, council chairman, etc.) and a leader appointed by the state (government, king, etc.) (governor, prefect, etc.) the two persons are employees of different institutions, but in practice the given is at the service of the population of the administrative unit. On the other hand, an administrative unit cannot be an employer, as it is a geographical concept. The employer is an institution created for the administration of this unit, or one of its organizations. The head of a department or department is employed by the company, but works for that company department/division. If we entered the employer, it would not be revealed which department the person works as a manager.

Why not an represents (P1268)? For two reasons: on the one hand, because not all positions mean permanent official representation. For example, a For example, a deputy director, deputy mayor, etc. has a well-defined job description, which may not include the fact that he can represent the organization or settlement he serves. It is conceivable that this authorization is only for the duration of the obstruction of the actual director. For example:

Mayor: represents (P1268) Prague
deputy mayor represents (P1268)Prague

These two statements cannot be interpreted at the same time, since the city can only have one representative at a time. But so:

mayor "in the service of this": Prague
deputy mayor "in the service of this": Prague

...it might be true. The same can cause conflicts in many other positions (e.g. minister, state secretary, deputy state secretary or director, deputy director, etc.)

The other reason is that P1268 is basically designed for organizations, but a settlement (administrative unit) is not an organization. An organization can only be an institution established for the administration of the settlement (local government, city council).

Further information: Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Data_Quality/Issues/P642

Pallor (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Notified participants of WikiProject Data Quality Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 16:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't entirely follow or buy your arguments against employer (P108) and represents (P1268). It seems to me that an administrative territorial entity (Q56061) can employ someone. Also, I don't see anything in represents (P1268) that says the relationship it describes must be permanent or unique to one person. I'll wait to see what others think before I vote. I'd also encourage you to edit your comments for brevity, out of respect for the reader. Swpb (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swpb Let's turn it around, maybe you will understand it this way: can you name a person whose employer is a administration unit? Pallor (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Regards. I am here, because I was precisely looking for something of the kind, to describe a current situation in French academia. There is an employer (paying the salary, deciding about promotions, and more generally the career) and there is the place where the person works or does research which is usually a laboratory/an own entity which may depend on several institutions (including in general the employer, but perhaps others, etc). Thus, I like the idea of having something different from "employed by". But I must say, I have a problem with the denomination, because "in service of" describes a specific type of relation. In my case, "attached to" or even "workplace" (if this could be an institution or administrative entity and not a town or country or geographical, which again is something different) would be better. --Cgolds (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm not sure that this new property would really solve the use of of (P642), as I expect in the end that each position will have its own item, rendering this property only transitory. IMO this is just moving the problem around and adding one more way to model positions, which will complicates queries. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, no support for creation. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]