Wikidata:Property proposal/legend for number
identified in image by edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Commons
Motivation edit
The sample above are for the file:Vienna Congress.jpg. In comparable cases, we could have an item for this version of The Congress of Vienna (Q66120851) as well, but for this file I think it's sufficient to provide the legend on Commons. Note that the original engraving The Congress of Vienna (Q66120851) doesn't include these numbers. series ordinal (P1545) doesn't seem sufficient as ordering might not necessarily be the one used in the image. (Add your motivation for this property here.) --- Jura 14:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Discussion edit
Weak oppose use inscription (P1684) as a qualifier. Jheald (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Simply, There are properties issue (P433) and quantity (P1114) David (talk) 06:18, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neither of those would be appropriate in this case, which is about annotations inscribed in the image. Jheald (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment I updated the the proposed label to "identified in image by". issue (P433) and similar source properties probably go in the correct direction. I think the meaning for quantity (P1114) is already hardcoded at Commons to mean 2*Joaquim Lobo da Silveira, 7th Count of Oriola (Q6206321) (for the above sample). --- Jura 14:12, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Support I don't know of an existing property that fits. inscription (P1684) could perhaps be use as a qualifier, but not sure about the sematnics, it doesn't say anything about identification, perhaps it could be used the other way round <File:Vienna Congress.jpg> inscription (P1684) "2", qualifier: indentifies (a new property!?) <Joaquim Lobo da Silveira, 7th Count of Oriola (Q6206321)>.
- issue (P433) and quantity (P1114) are nonsense, issue (P433) has a type constraint to text (Q234460), quantity (P1114) is for quantities and has datatype quantitiy, has nothing to do with the proposal apart from the use of numbers. --Marsupium (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Support This proposal seems reasonable to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I would just add, that describing specific part of the image via structured data might be possible in the future if we can connect image notes with structured data and it was already discused somewhere. How the technology will exactly work is unknown to me and thus is unknown, how it could be handled by SD. But on the other hand if the image includes notes in its orriginal layer as an image, why not to describe it structuraly. Maybe same property would be in the future used for the proposal mentioned above. Juandev (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Juandev: Thanks for your feedback. I think relative position within image (P2677) does what you may have in mind. It could be applied to versions of the image that don't have the numbering, i.e. most others in c:Category:Jean-Baptiste_Isabey_Congress_of_Vienna. --- Jura 09:59, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Comment I am still coing the idea, wheatere it is needed, when there is P2677. If I understand this well, labeling parts of image is in fact creating an anchor in the image to link it with text. Today we can use frames, which are also anchors. How you would advocate the need to have a specific property for old way of anchoring? I understand that P2677 might not be sufficient as it allows only square/rectangle like anchor, which may sometime cause problems, because such anchors would overlap - overlap when physically highghted in the image. But on the other side, we my try to wider that property to allow defining complex image area (if it is possible I dont know). I wonder weather such historical anchors have some value rather than anchors. I would image the property indicating typu of anchor, e.g. image has number type anchors. Juandev (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think we are allowed to overwrite images to remove numbering and use P2677 instead. --- Jura 17:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- You dont need to overwrite image. The P2677 creates and invisible anchor, which can be displayed as aditional layer. Once you use such image, you can switch it off and once you print that image its not visile. (So click on the image now commons:File:Vienna Congress.jpg, when I have added that layer and you will see how it works. Juandev (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the purpose of P2677 and the way it works, but File:Vienna Congress.jpg (and other images) have visible numbering for some elements and users likely want to know what it refers to. This even when they can access the frame system. BTW, I don't advocate anything, I just structure what's available. --- Jura 17:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- I see, but thats a good point! Juandev (talk) 17:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- I understand the purpose of P2677 and the way it works, but File:Vienna Congress.jpg (and other images) have visible numbering for some elements and users likely want to know what it refers to. This even when they can access the frame system. BTW, I don't advocate anything, I just structure what's available. --- Jura 17:40, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- You dont need to overwrite image. The P2677 creates and invisible anchor, which can be displayed as aditional layer. Once you use such image, you can switch it off and once you print that image its not visile. (So click on the image now commons:File:Vienna Congress.jpg, when I have added that layer and you will see how it works. Juandev (talk) 17:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think we are allowed to overwrite images to remove numbering and use P2677 instead. --- Jura 17:23, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Support That looks important. Juandev (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)
