Wikidata:Property proposal/qualifier for this property

qualifier for this property edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Done: qualifier for this property (P8379) (Talk and documentation)

Description	qualifier that is commonly used with this property
Data type	Property
Example 1	archives at (P485) → level of description (P6224)
Example 2	archives at (P485) → inventory number (P217)

Motivation edit

Currently, we frequently use "allowed qualifiers constraint" to list commonly used qualifiers of a property. This has the problem that when a less commonly used qualifier gets used with the property a constraint violation is thrown which is not really intended. This property would allow us to list common useages without having to list them in the constraint section. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:30, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Comment I think Property:P1646 might have been this. --- Jura 16:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support assuming there isn't currently a mechanism for this. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support where P1646 was intended for mandatory qualifiers, this appears to be intended for optional ones (@GZWDer, Matěj Suchánek, Yair rand, Marsupium, Deryck Chan, Multichill: from P1646's DR). Mahir256 (talk) 17:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is about optional one's and not mandatory one's like P1646 (which we don't need anymore as we can model mandatory one's via constraints). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:58, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose @ChristianKl, ArthurPSmith, Mahir256: I'm not convinced. We already have required qualifier constraint (Q21510856) and allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851). If someone starts using an uncommon qualifier with a property and are convinced that they are correct, we should solve the constraint violation by adding that qualifier into the allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) of that property. Deryck Chan (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Or put it another way, I can't tell whether the list of "qualifiers for this property" will be longer or shorter than the list of qualifiers you will put into allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851). I can't think of any regular use case where you want the two lists to be different, so we don't need a new property. Deryck Chan (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many use-cases where we don't want a allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) list.

Presently there are two discussions on the project chat where the ideal solution is that a user would use a qualifer that's currently subject to a constraint because it's not in the allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) list. A qualifier like object has role (P3831) should be usable on most properties and is currently blocked via allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) on plenty of properties. object named as (P1932) and point in time (P585) should also not be forbidden qualifiers from plenty of properties that currently exist.

I don't think that new users should be encouraged to edit constraints just because it seems the constraint conflicts with the way the want to use a property. Treating constraints that way reduces the reliability of constraints. I don't think we have an effective way to have discussions for creating long lists of qualifiers that can be reasonably used. ChristianKl ❪✉❫

Hmm, would it be possible for allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) to take a class, something like "widely applicable qualifier", rather than having to list each qualifier in the constraints for each property? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: it seems to make sense to both list required qualifier constraint (Q21510856) (the qualifiers you must use), allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) (the only qualifiers you can use, if there is a closed list), and the proposed "common quantifiers" which are the ones you often want to use. (Of course all the mandatory quantifiers would be common, and if there's a list of allowed quantifiers then all the common quantifiers should also be allowed). --A3nm (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One additional benefit to having this as a separate property is that we could use series ordinal (P1545) to specify how the list should be sorted for displaying automatic suggestions which we can't on the qualifiers for the constraint. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Moebeus (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Marsupium (talk) 20:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done please make good use of it. @ChristianKl, ArthurPSmith, Marsupium, A3nm, Moebeus: --- Jura 07:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]