Wikidata

Wikidata:Property proposal/rationale text

< Wikidata:Property proposal

award rationale edit

Descriptionshort sentence explaining the reason for awarding a prize to a winner.
Aliases: award citation, award reason
Data typeMonolingual text
Domainaward (Q618779)
Example 1Wilhelm Röntgen (Q35149) → Nobel Prize in Physics (Q38104) → "in recognition of the extraordinary services he has rendered by the discovery of the remarkable rays subsequently named after him"
Example 2Lars Ahlfors (Q211642) → Fields medal (Q28835) → "Awarded medal for research on covering surfaces related to Riemann surfaces of inverse functions of entire and meromorphic functions. Opened up new fields of analysis."
Example 3Doris Lessing (Q40874) → Nobel Prize in Literature (Q37922) → "Die heldendichteres van de vrouwelijke ervaring, die met scepsis, vuur en visionaire kracht een verdeelde beschaving heeft bestudeerd."
Example 4Franco Modigliani (Q205850) → Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel (Q47170) → "Per la sua analisi pionieristica del risparmio e dei mercati finanziari."
Example 5Uroš Macerl (Q30243340) → Goldman Environmental Prize (Q1506625) → "An organic farmer from Slovenia, successfully stopped a cement kiln from co-incinerating petcoke with hazardous industrial waste by rallying legal support from fellow Eko Krog activists and leveraging his status as the only citizen allowed to challenge the plant’s permits."
See alsomotto text (P1451), for work (P1686)

Motivation edit

Awards to a winner are based on a motivation, which is often not related to a specific piece of work, but for example to lifetime achievements or a series of action, important efforts, etc. In these cases, the motivation cannot be expressed using for work (P1686) as it is given as a short descriptive sentence. We would like to capture this as a wikidata statement. The property that comes close in terms of use is the motto text (P1451), and although judging by its description this property suffice, however, the semantics are different. Andrawaag (talk) 14:46, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Good point, adapted the proposal accordingly. Andrawaag (talk) 20:26, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl, ArthurPSmith: I like the suggestion and have updated the proposal accordingly Andrawaag (talk) 14:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Quick check - I assume we are planning on keeping the linked-data format in for work (P1686) or similar as well? It would definitely be best to have both where possible, even if the P1686 form is only ever simplistic. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the idea is to have both. We proposed this property in the first place because we felt that for work (P1686) was too narrow --OlafJanssen (talk) 10:31, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vladimir Alexiev (talk • contribs).
  •   Question isn't sample #5 for something else? [1] It currently has a lecture topic as value. --- Jura 20:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment I don't agree with example 5 & 6. We proposed this property to fill those case where we can't initiate a Wikidata item. In aome cases an award is given not with a specific - tangible - work in mind, but more as for example a life time achievement. The rational is then captured in a motivation or citation. If the award is linked to something specific, e.g. a book, achievement, etc, it is preferable to use a property like for work (P1686) Andrawaag (talk) 10:56, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment Not only the examples, but the description of the property was changed one day ago and this does not align any more the property description with the label of the property. "Award rationale" (the property label) corresponds semantically to the description "short sentence explaining the reason for awarding a prize to a winner". The proposed modifications added also "issue addressed" and " title of the lecture at the award ceremony". These two do not correspond semantically with the name "award rationale" and would also be problematic for the data type of property as discussed here below.
  1. "Issue addressed":
    • would create confusion and misuse because the range of the property then becomes quite overlapping with for work (P1686) (the alternative description of for work (P1686) explicitly says "for their work on" and this clearly indicates that that property should be used to point to the subject/issue/item the work(s) for which the award is given dealt with: in the removed example "pollution and waste" were such subjects and for work (P1686) should have been used). To make clear the difference with "Award rationale" I have modified the example (now it is example 5), and really used the actual award rationale as reported on the official website: "award rationale" should not be used to provide "shortcuts" instead than modelling items as when using for work (P1686)
    • the data type "string" of this proposed property to represent something that would better be an item (the "issue addressed" indeed) is problematic because it promotes using strings instead than modelling proper items, as said above, for work (P1686) is the proper property to point to the actual work and its subjects when they are precisely identifiable and can be modelled as items
  2. "Title of the lecture at the award ceremony":
    • a lecture given to the award ceremony does not coincide with the rationale to award the prize, in fact it comes literally "after" the prize. A property should not be used to point to semantically different resources (award ceremony lecture versus award rationale, in this case).

Considering.Different.Routes 12:05, 30 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

  •   Support Niko.georgiev (talk) 15:21, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vladimir Alexiev: This might be declared ready, except you seemed to feel the description should be expanded with your edits the other day. Are you satisfied with this property being created with the current label and description, or do we need to discuss further? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Considering.Different.Routes, Andrawaag: I understand the difference between an object prop ("for work") and a string prop (the one discussed here). If you examine the variety of wikipedia tables describing award winners, you will find a variety of string fields, all of them essentially comments. By disallowing them here, you'll force us to drop these fields. Will you really consider creating an item for the issue mentioned for Uros? And, The award lecture is NOT the work, it just summarizes the work for the entertainment of the gathered glamorous crowd. From the lecture name "Cannibal Talk...", I presume Obeyesekere was awarded for his work on the speech of some cannibals; the lecture name is the best proxy for the rationale that we have. Sorry for changing the description without discussion, and please consider this comment in good faith --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vladimir Alexiev, Andrawaag: Hello Vladimir Alexiev, here is my opinion about how one can proceed about the two elements you discussed: 1) "issues", and 2) "Title of the lecture" at the award ceremony.
  1. I will start from 2) "title of the lecture". I think the modelling should go as follows: there is one item (the lecture) and that one has a title (the string you mention). So the point for me is that one should point from the award item to the lecture item with a property and then the title is a property of the lecture item, not of the award in itself. In conclusion, you may want to consider whether to create a property "award lecture" that points to such a lecture item (and not a string, so not a property with a string data type), and then model that lecture item with its properties (title and everything elese, for example note that the item "lecture" can be identified with different resources, if available: a publication, a video, etc etc, so modelling that item in itself would be more rich and useful, I think).
  2. As for point 1), that seems more problematic to me, because there is a mix with the semantic of for work (P1686) (see its alternative description). Anyway, as in my comment above on 30 November 2018, I think issues should be modelled as items, and not "shortcutted" as a string. Thus if you feel a new specific property should be created for that, one should also modify the semantic of for work (P1686) (at least the alternative description).

Considering.Different.Routes 12:34, 05 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

  • @Considering.Different.Routes: I'm not sure you've read my comment carefully enough, nor explored Wikpedia award winner tables significantly. (For reference, my examples are at https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/rationale_text&oldid=801718278).
    • The "Issue" for which Uroš Macerl won the Goldman Environmental Prize is "Pollution & Waste". It's some string categorization that the Goldman committee used to group their awards. Uros did not create "Pollution & Waste" (quite the contrary), so that's not "for work". Furthermore, I doubt Wikidata has such an item because it's a compound (conjunction). So that is a string and nothing but a string.
    • Certainly it would be better to create the award lectures as separate entities and link them with appropriate properties, but I am not prepared to spend the effort to do this now. So for now I'll put them in "rationale". You can later create the extra machinery you described, and make them out as separate items. Cheers! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vladimir Alexiev: Thank you, I had read your comment carefully, I was just trying to propose constructive solutions. If you want to consider:
    • property for work (P1686) has (already) the alternative description "for their work ON" (capital ON by me), as you can see from the link. This nicely fit with the "issue(s)" you are mentioning and are interested in. The fact that those issues where used as labels to "group their awards", as you say, does not make them "the rationale for an award", but rather, indeed, a grouping label. The modified example about Uroš Macerl contains an example of rationale descriptive string, taken from the award announcement.
    • "award lecture": quoting from your comment above "I am not prepared to spend the effort to do this now. So for now I'll put them in "rationale"". Of course you're free to do as you want, pity that it will make the use and understanding of the data (especially when done by machine) more difficult and prone to error, and so make Wikidata less useful for everyone. Maybe you can consider refraining from that, given the consensus expressed by people participating in this discussion around the semantic of the property "award rationale"? Thank you for that, if you decide so.Considering.Different.Routes 17:48, 07 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ChristianKl, ArthurPSmith, Vladimir Alexiev, Andrawaag, Niko.georgiev: @OlafJanssen, Andrew Gray, Jura1:   Done: award rationale (P6208). − Pintoch (talk) 22:07, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/rationale_text&oldid=806933054"