Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/property used

< Wikidata:Property proposal

property used edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Done: uses property (P3176) (Talk and documentation)
DescriptionWikidata property used, discussed, or otherwise analyzed in this work (not the meaning of the property itself)
RepresentsWikidata property (Q18616576)
Data typeProperty
Domainworks, not WMF websites, such as items for articles discussing the use of specific properties
Allowed valuesany property, not too many per item
Example[1] → date of birth (P569), given name (P735)
Planned useadd to some to relevant items
See alsodepicts (P180), cites work (P2860), present in work (P1441)
Motivation

This property would allow linking an item representing a work (a scientific article, for instance) to specific wikidata properties that it uses. The relationship is that the work uses those properties, not that these are properties that would be relevant in statements on the wikidata item representing the work. This is a "meta"-level property that links properties to an item that discusses those properties. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:51, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion
  •   Oppose. We can't add properties to externally-hosted documents such as that given as an example above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:36, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Support my proposal. Obviously an item would need to be created for that document.
    --- Jura 12:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Oppose either this is adding properties to external documents (which we can't do), duplicating the properties that already exist on an item (pointless in the extreme) or duplicating the external document (less pointless, but still not really a good use of time). Better to have main subject (P921) linking to the subject of the document and using the document as a reference for e.g. the date of birth on the item about the subject. Thryduulf (talk) 13:59, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jura, as usual you are not explaining your purpose here at all well. Can I try to explain why this seems like it could be useful (and if my guess is correct I think I would   Support creation of this unless there's a suitable existing property already). What I believe is trying to be recorded with this property is that a work (a scientific article, for instance) is in some way making use of wikidata and analyzing or doing something useful with specific wikidata properties. Therefore, an item referencing the work would not actually have these properties apply to that item in their normal state, rather the relationship is that the work uses those properties. As this property name implies. Therefore this is more a "meta"-level property that links properties to an item that discusses those properties. I think this is an interesting and useful application and why not record that relationship in wikidata itself? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pigsonthewing, Thryduulf: - does the updated description and motivation help you understand the need for this? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Possibly. It's clear now that I misunderstood what Jura was trying to say, but I'm not sure I fully understand it either and don't currently have time to improve on that. I've withdrawn my opposition for now, but may reinstate it or move to support later depending on what I make of the proposal once I'm certain I understand it. Thryduulf (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • The intention is more clear. I remain opposed. The usecase is best dealt with using main subject (P921), and items. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:57, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • main subject (P921) for the example Jura gave is certainly not any single property or collection of wikidata properties. The main subject of that work is "natural language understanding" or something like that. "Use" of a property is very different from it being the main subject of the article, and I feel it's an important thing to record - yes it is meta, but the fact that wikidata properties are being found useful for some sort of research study is itself a useful piece of information I think we should track. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jura1, ArthurPSmith, Pigsonthewing, Thryduulf:   Done Now uses property (P3176). --Lymantria (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Lymantria: What leads you to assume that there is consensus for creation of this property, in the above discussion? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The complete discussion, of course. Majority support, objections dealt with, proposed alternative not compatible. After no more input in almost a month I concluded to create. Lymantria (talk) 14:54, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: There is no "majority support". My objection "The usecase is best dealt with using main subject (P921), and items." is not dealt with. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Count:Jura1, ArthurPSmith and if you wish myself versus Pigsonthewing. main subject (P921) cannot have a property as value, and thus is not compatible. Furthermore, no property in itself is main topic of [2]. Lymantria (talk) 15:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Lymantria: Arthur wrote "I think I would Support creation of this unless there's a suitable existing property already". If you wish to express support, you should not be closing the proposal. If you read what I wrote, you will see that I suggested "using main subject (P921), and items" (empahsis added), not using properties as values. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's exactly the and items addition, unnecessary as main subject (P921) has items as values, that makes it incompatible to be a property with properties values. Your suggestion that I might have not read that, while I clearly pointed to it, is quite surprising to me. Lymantria (talk) 20:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not in the least incompatible; even the proponent themself noted "I guess I could make an item for the property and link that instead". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:41, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And added "Sounds pointless". But I think I answered your question sufficiently. Lymantria (talk) 06:30, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/property_used&oldid=377140025"