Wikidata:Property proposal/ocupante de / occupant of
occupant of edit
You have not transcluded your proposal on Wikidata:Property proposal/Place yet. Please do it.
Under discussion
| Description | inverse property of P466 |
|---|---|
| Represents | occupant of (Q107586840) |
| Data type | Item |
| Example 1 | Louvre Museum (Q19675) → Louvre Palace (Q1075988) |
| Example 2 | Legislative Assembly of Saint Petersburg (Q2390550) → Mariinsky Palace (Q1229016) |
| Example 3 | Municipal Museum of Óbidos (Q59779523) → Q73642565 |
Motivation edit
If X is occupant of Y, Y is occupied by X, and we should have the properties in both items, in X and in Y. GualdimG (talk) 20:26, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Discussion edit
- Tend to
Oppose if "being an inverse" is the only reason given for such a property. Mahir256 (talk) 13:49, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Is the inverse property, but on the other item. If we state that "Louvre Palace (Q1075988)" has as occupant (property P466) the "Louvre Museum (Q19675)", why shouldn't we state that "Louvre Museum (Q19675)" occupies (the new property) "Louvre Palace (Q1075988)"? GualdimG (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm currently leaning towards rejection. Oppose – But as you can see from the “currently”, it is not yet a question of a general rejection. If you refine the proposal and state exactly when this property should and shouldn't be used, then I could well imagine a support. But in the current form I have to tend to reject it, since the proposed property in the current form also conflicts with other properties. In relation to persons, the proposed property conflicts with property residence (P551) and in relation to a football club's venue with property home venue (P115). --Gymnicus (talk) 13:51, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- (1) The new property is similar to property residence (P551), but it would take place in organizations items instead of people. The definition of P551 is "the place where the person is or has been, resident". The definition of the new property should be "the place where the organization has its headquarters". There are historic buildings that are classified as monuments and have a own live different from the one of its occupants. (2) Yes, it would be very similar to the property home venue (P115). But in the P115 case the definition is "home stadium or venue of a sports team or applicable performing arts organization", but there are much more other cases of organization (companies, museums, city halls, police stations, libraries, barraks, etc. ) that not comply with the P115 definition and still are permanent occupants of some building or place. GualdimG (talk) 06:31, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- Oppose per Mahir256. --Nw520 (talk) 13:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)
- The only reason given by Mahir256 is beacause is an inverse property. However, we use so many "inverse" properties. For instance, we state in one item that the person X is father of Y, Z, etc., and at the Y, Z, etc. items we state they are sons/daughters of X. Why is the inverse property a problem? GualdimG (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The only reason stated in the motivation is that this would be a property's inverse. As long as there's no explicit use-case for an inverse property that wouldn't be possible with its original property (e.g. on-wiki Lua-access) there's in my opinion no need for the inverse property. c.f. phab:T209559, Wikidata:Requests for comment/Do we want automatic inverse statement creation and if so, how should they happen? --Nw520 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The similitude of the proposed property to the father/(son/daughter) relation seems obvious to me. By your logic, if we state at the X item that he is father of Y, why the need to state at the Y item that he/she is son/daughter of X? GualdimG (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- There are mostly technical and sometimes historical reasons for keeping inverse properties for the time being, but generally speaking new ones are not desired.1,2,3,4. --Nw520 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- None of the situations referred from 1 to 4 apllies to the case I propose. What is now proposed is a situation when an Organization is occupying a Building, or part of it, building that in general is classified as monument. What you referred is: (1) Object that separated from the subject. Inverse of separado de (P807) (2) An object has a memorial for example a memorial stone, memorial place or monument (3) Subjects belonging to an organization, club or musical group. Do not use for members of ethnic or social groups, nor for holding a political position. (4) This group or organization has the specified entity as a member. None of this 4 situations is of any kind similar to what I have signaled. So, what problems could arise with the proposed property? GualdimG (talk) 18:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- There are mostly technical and sometimes historical reasons for keeping inverse properties for the time being, but generally speaking new ones are not desired.1,2,3,4. --Nw520 (talk) 15:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The similitude of the proposed property to the father/(son/daughter) relation seems obvious to me. By your logic, if we state at the X item that he is father of Y, why the need to state at the Y item that he/she is son/daughter of X? GualdimG (talk) 13:48, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The only reason stated in the motivation is that this would be a property's inverse. As long as there's no explicit use-case for an inverse property that wouldn't be possible with its original property (e.g. on-wiki Lua-access) there's in my opinion no need for the inverse property. c.f. phab:T209559, Wikidata:Requests for comment/Do we want automatic inverse statement creation and if so, how should they happen? --Nw520 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- The only reason given by Mahir256 is beacause is an inverse property. However, we use so many "inverse" properties. For instance, we state in one item that the person X is father of Y, Z, etc., and at the Y, Z, etc. items we state they are sons/daughters of X. Why is the inverse property a problem? GualdimG (talk) 06:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)