Shortcuts: WD:PP/GEN, WD:PP/Generic

Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic: Difference between revisions

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older editNewer edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
archiving 1 proposal
Looniverse (talk | contribs)
224,204 edits
m typo
Line 32: Line 32:
{{Wikidata:Property proposal/Sinhala Cinema Database ID}}
{{Wikidata:Property proposal/Sinhala Cinema Database ID}}
{{Wikidata:Property proposal/has semantic role}}
{{Wikidata:Property proposal/has semantic role}}
{{Wikidata:Property proposal/WHO Country Database ID]}}
{{Wikidata:Property proposal/WHO Country Database ID}}

Revision as of 17:36, 27 May 2024


Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Computing Lexeme

See also

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Search if the property already exists.
  2. Search if the property has already been proposed.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Read Wikidata:Creating a property proposal for guidelines you should follow when proposing new property.
  6. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below by editing the two templates at the top of the page to add proposal details.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the creation of the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See property creation policy.

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2024/07.

General

‎Competitor

   Not done
DescriptionCompetitors in game shows
Data typeItem
Example 1Ken Jennings
Example 2Thom Mckee
Example 3Micheal Larson

Motivation

It would be a property that would mainly go into game shows about who is competing in the show.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by BATTLEBOTS BOI (talk • contribs).

Discussion

‎relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator

   Under discussion
Descriptionindicates a relation between the subject and the SDGs or one of the components
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Allowed valuesItems that are instance of (P31): Sustainable Development Goal (Q53580881), Sustainable Development Goal Target (Q56724848), or Sustainable Development Goal Indicator (Q56726345). And also Sustainable Development Goals (Q7649586) itself.
Example 1biodiversity (Q47041)→Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Q53581245)
Example 2climate change adaptation (Q260607)→Target 13.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57590883)
Example 3Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Q22907841)→Indicator 13.1.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595592)
Example 4early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258)→Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404)
Planned useAdd on phenomena, processes and policies.
Wikidata projectWikiProject Sustainable Development (Q56507949)

Motivation

A property like this will make it much easier to connect Wikidata items to the Sustainable Development Goals (Q7649586) and enable a straightforward and queryable data model. Ainali (talk) 15:25, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mietchen (talk) 21:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC) Gregor Hagedorn (talk) 15:38, 23 September 2018 (UTC) Ainali (talk) 08:00, 14 October 2018 (UTC) Michael Cieslik (talk) 13:52, 26 November 2018 (UTC) Pdehaye (talk) 00:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC) Cassandreces (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC) Pauljmackay (talk) 18:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Will (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notified participants of WikiProject Sustainable Development. Ainali (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  •  Support We need better mechanisms to tag relationships of Wikidata entities to such measures of sustainable development, and the proposed approach looks good to me. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Generally, is a label that's longer than the property description a bad indication.
Properties exist to specify how two entities are related. This property just says that they are somehow related which is very imprecise. If we take early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258) and Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404), I would call that relationship something like "is measured by" (and maybe we can find an even better name). ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is a long label, and was contemplating inf the "relates to the SDGs" would have been a good enough one, but thought that it might not have shown the intended use clearly enough. But perhaps that should be switched, I am very open to that.
Regarding specifying the relation, generally I would agree with you. But in this collection, and for all different kinds of items and how they could be connected with the goals, targets or indicators, it would be too complex to create an overview in a query to find out what is having a relation to, for example, a specific indicator. Yes, it is a generic relation, but as the relations are to a well-defined and particularly notable subset of items of high general interest, I think it is called for. Ainali (talk) 06:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I want to know what has relationships to a specific indicator, I could just look at that page and use the reverse label. I would expect that there are also other ways you can write your query.
As far as this being a particularly notable subset of items, to me that means that it's even more important to be specific about how they relate to other items. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:24, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The SDGs are unscientific, flawed, and self-defeating / self-contradicting. The main reason for why this shouldn't be included however is that nearly everything has some kind of relation to them (colloquially speaking). Instead of using very flawed overly broad subjective inspecific goals some alternative(s) could be used and these may already exist such as climate change mitigation (Q898653), methane emissions mitigation (Q124806283) or pollution prevention (Q7225750) which are in need of complements and expansion. --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support -- LevandeMänniska (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support Would be useful for eg many governmental projects explicitly targeting sustainability goals. -- Arvelius (talk) 13:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    How would it be "useful"? Also I don't see why it wouldn't be better to just use clearer alternatives. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you arguing against the SDGs? This property proposal is not about their usefulness, but how we can describe what is happening in the world, and in that sense it is useful. Whether you like them or not, it is undeniable a framework that is used by the United Nations and a majority of the member states when developing policy. Besides the examples above we have items like Sustainable Development Goal 12 in the European Union (Q122222559), Sustainable Development Goals and Australia (Q104856926), Sustainable Development Investment Partnership (Q25215461), Q110547062 etc. Even for a critic, it would be useful to be able to see how things connect according to this framework, especially since it won't exclude other properties to be developed if you have suggestions on other frameworks to document. One could say that religion or worldview (P140) or official religion (P3075) are not useful nor scientific, but as Wikidata editors, we should describe that those are used in the world, whatever we ourselves think about them. Ainali (talk) 08:55, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes but that is only one of two objections I have against including these, please see above for some links about why I object to them, e.g. because they're themselves against sustainability, and the other reason. Countries don't actually use this framework when making policy, and there have been studies about whether they do. Again, nearly everything has a relation to them in some way. Instead, of linking this at nearly every page and advocating for SDGs on Wikidata, with btw no usefulness beyond that, people should invest their time in expanding and integrating specific goals such as "Methane emissions reduction". Official religion for example is scientific as that can be objectively evaluated, in many cases countries have that even codified somehow. Yes, we should describe things of the real world which is why there is a wikidata item and Wikipedia article(s) for the SDGs, they don't need to be linked at every economy or environment-related page. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would oppose less if this was used only sparingly for items as related to each as early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258) to Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404). And, again, more specific goals and problems are not yet well featured in WD so it would be better if people did that first or at least alongside this instead of mostly only having SDG items and properties. SDGs are not good or well suited as the only framework for considering global issues / problems in terms of measuring, formalizing and addressing them. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ainali:, could you please clarify the comments above by @Prototyperspective:. @Prototyperspective, ChristianKl: any changes in your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:43, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @ZI Jony Sure. The request for other goals is a bit of whataboutism in my opinion. We can of course have several properties for different frameworks in Wikidata, but the lack of interest in other frameworks is not relevant to this proposal. Regarding the framework not being used is an unsupported claim. It is clear that the EU member states, for example, report about their progress and that it is aggregated upwards so there must be hundreds if not thousands of civil servants dedicated just to the reporting. Ainali (talk) 13:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, it makes sense...I only very weakly oppose it at this point (mainly due to concerns of how the property would be used) but think the item should only be used for items directly matching the SDG goal as the one in the example not also to items somewhat related/relevant to them. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I still think that it's better to specify the nature of a how the two relate in a property and not only that the object of the property has something to do with sustainable development goals. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support AmandaSLawrence (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Would be useful for grouping SDG related entities and reuse of wikidata in SDG projects[reply]

‎COBISS.SI ID

   Not done
Descriptionco-operative bnline bibliographic system and services identifier
RepresentsCOBISS.net (Q5013258)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1Slovene nomenclature of birds of the Western Palearctic (Q124673140)COBISS ID69621
Example 2United Slovenia (Q1585354)COBISS ID269294592
Example 3Hamlet (Q41567)COBISS ID3467099
Example 4Ljubljana (Q437)COBISS ID18846464
Sourcehttps://www.cobiss.si
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Formatter URLhttps://plus.cobiss.net/cobiss/si/en/bib/$1
Single-value constraintno
Distinct-values constraintyes

Motivation

This is the ID of publications as recorded by the Slovenian library information system COBISS. --TadejM (talk) 17:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

— Yerpo Eh? 17:01, 24 September 2016 (UTC) — Pinky sl (talk) 11:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC) — Sporti --Sporti (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC) — A09090091 --A09090091 (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC) — Miha Peče (talk) 5:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Slovenia Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 13:06, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Done. --TadejM (talk) 20:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ArthurPSmith, updated the proposal. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 04:22, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Examples are really off. The first one, Imenik ptic zahodne Palearktike, is ok, but all others not. One good example could be Slovenski etnološki leksikon, which has COBISS ID 215529984. Miha Peče (talk) 13:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, not sure on the examples - Hamlet's wikidata item is about the work in general, but the COBISS ID refers to a Slovenian translation it looks like? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ArthurPSmith:, COBISS ID referred to the same item which translated into Slovenian. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In Slovenia, the COBISS system is used to uniquely identify each specific version or edition of a book through an identifier known as a COBISS ID. Each version of the book, whether it be the print version, electronic version, a reprint in the same language, or translations into different languages, can have its own unique COBISS ID. This system ensures that every distinct version of a book can be tracked and accessed separately in the library database. So, indeed, each COBISS ID belongs to one specific version or edition of a book, helping librarians and readers access the exact version they need. This differentiation is particularly useful for academic, historical, and literary research where the specifics of a publication—such as its edition, year of publication, and language—can be crucial.

  • Unique Identification: Each COBISS ID uniquely identifies a specific version or edition of a book. Including this ID in Wikidata can enhance the data accuracy and specificity, allowing users to link directly to a particular edition or translation.
  • Multiple IDs for One Title: Since a book can have multiple COBISS IDs (representing different editions, translations, or formats), deciding which ID to include can be challenging. Including multiple IDs for different versions might require a more complex data structure or additional qualifiers in Wikidata.
  • Dynamic Data: COBISS IDs are specific to editions and are subject to change as new editions are published. Keeping Wikidata entries up-to-date with all current editions could require ongoing maintenance

To effectively include COBISS IDs in Wikidata, you could:

  • Use qualifiers to distinguish between different editions, translations, and formats associated with the same work.

Overall, including COBISS IDs in Wikidata can be a smart strategy for enhancing bibliographic data, especially for users in regions where COBISS is a standard tool in academic and public libraries. However, it's important to plan the structure and maintenance of these entries to maximize their utility and accuracy.--Pinky sl (talk) 13:59, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you a lot for the info. As a single work can have more than one COBISS ID, it seems best to be able to cite all the COBISS IDs of a work under the same property unless there are separate items for individual versions. For this reason, 'single value constraint' should be 'no'. I have updated the request accordingly. 'Edition' (edition or translation of (P629)) and 'format' (form of creative work (P7937)) should be optional qualifiers (provided if this information exists) and 'language of work' (language of work or name (P407)) should be a mandatory qualifier (unless it is explicitly not possible to define it). What else would you propose to be done? --TadejM (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agent of action

   Under discussion
Descriptionthing that does the action
Data typeItem
Domainaction (Q4026292)
Example 1German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918)agent of actionArmy Group B (Q157572) Source
Example 2Opening of Tokyo 2020 games (Q116504974)agent of actionNaruhito (Q217096) Source
Example 3Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)agent of actionJohann Philipp Reis (Q77124) Source
See alsohttps://schema.org/agent

Motivation

I would like to create a data model to describe notable actions agents have made that are described in various Wikimedia articles. We should allow users to document actions so that they can be used to create timelines of events that can then be easily translated. They can also be used as a source to generate detailed Wikipedia article content for Abstract Wikipedia.

This property is the first to be proposed of the data model and follows the Schema.org data model for actions: https://schema.org/Action

participant (P710) exists, however that's usually used usually for events and not actions. It also requires that you use object has role (P3831) to specify the role of the participant. For a relationship as critical and common as an agent is to the action they perform, we should have a dedicated property and not be required to add object has role (P3831)agent (Q24229398) to every single agent statement. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

subframe of

   Not done
DescriptionProperty stating that one frame is an integral sub-unit of another, in terms of the action or state described by the parent frame. This is distinct from frame elaboration.
Data typeItem
Domainitem
Example 1starting the car (Q117748121)subframe ofdriving to work (Q117748167)
Example 2recruitment (Q899277)subframe ofoperating a business (Q117748249)
Example 3undress (Q104418065)subframe ofshowering (Q13164396)
Example 4parking (Q267917)subframe ofdriving to work (Q117748167)
Example 5opening car hood (Q117748559)subframe ofrepairing car engine (Q117748470)
Planned useI plan to use this alongside other proposed frame semantic properties for a wikidata project involving building a database of frames for Akkadian.

Motivation

See discussion of the 'frame element' property for general motivation of this class of properties. For the 'subframe' property, there is the question of whether, in terms of data structure design, it is preferable to have both 'frame element' and 'subframe' be distinct relations, to have the latter be a subtype of the former, or to dispense with the latter in favor of the former. Not all elements of a semantic frame are subframes (at least as those elements are typically represented in frame notation, such as LEASH in WALKING THE DOG), but a subframe could be argued to be an element of a parent frame.

Discussion

  • @Sinleqeunnini: Please provide actual examples that reference the items or lexemes you mean. Otherwise, this looks like it's not really optimized to deal with the way Wikidata works. Note that Wikidata does distinguish between entities represented by items and lexemes that point toward those items in individual languages. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    Sorry for the delay in responding. I thought I would get automatic updates from Wikidata about responses, but it seems to not be so.
    Two examples (one from the explanation of the proposed property 'lexical unit') would be
    Artillery (Q64418) is a frame element/role of War (Q198)
    'Lugal' (Q854642) is a lexical unit of City (Q515)
    The first example is not a frame specific to, or even found within, the language and associated culture of Akkadian. In the second, while an appropriate item for the lexical unit 'lugal' already exists, we would probably want to replace City with Ancient Mesopotamian City, as the two are fairly different frames. One frequent question in building frames for Akkadian will thus be whether pre-given items in Wikidata can function as adequate frames for that language/culture, or whether there needs to be an elaboration (as above) or different item altogether. Sinleqeunnini (talk) 17:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sinleqeunnini: Lugal (Q854642)lexical unitcity (Q515) tells a Wikidata user very little of how Lugal (Q854642) and city (Q515) relate to each other. Besides, there isn't anything lexical about any of the two by the dictionary definition of "lexical". I find "relating to the words or vocabulary of a language" and "relating to or of the nature of a lexicon or dictionary" as definition for lexical. Those items are not about words or vocabulary.
    If we wanted to link from Q854642 to Q515 the related property would be something like "rules over the jurisdiction" on an equivalent of that. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:56, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello ChristianKI,
    I believe I understand your arguments. Let me respond to them point by point.
    I agree that the entry for Lugal does not indicate how it relates to city, even though it is a fact that a Sumerian lugal rules from a city. But that seems to be an issue with how rich the entry for Lugal is rather than my proposal for frame properties, since those properties are meant to indicate fairly generic, cognitive linguistic properties involving frame elements and their frames (for instance, that one item sits in the frame relation to another item).
    I think I made a slight mistake in my example of Lugal (Q854642). My understanding of Q-items is that they can represent general things like concepts and objects. Lexemes in Wikidata are labeled as L-items. A better example would be: 'lugal (L643713) is a lexical unit for RULING A MESOPOTAMIAN CITY (Q...).' The predicate item here needs to be a semantic frame or scene (conventionally indicated in capital letters), and I have chosen a phrase 'RULING A MESOPOTAMIAN CITY' to emphasize both that the predicate is not a lexical item, and also is about the specific scene of ruling a Mesopotamian city. I do not think the specific Q-item for that exists in Wikidata so I did not give a specific Q-number, and as said previously, it is still an issue for me to be worked out how much to rely on existing Q-items to serve as frames instead of making new Q-items.
    Note also that there can be multiple properties linking two items. While Lugal (Q854642) is related to City (Q515) in the sense of 'rules over the jurisdiction of', note also that Lugal (Q854642) can be seen as a semantic role, and relates to City (or perhaps better labeled CITY) as a frame element. The notion of 'rules over the jurisdiction of' is a semantic elaboration of 'frame element'.
    Matt Sinleqeunnini (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikidata properties are not meant to be generic but exist to express the specific relationship between two items.
    Wikidata has certain objects. There are items (number starting with Q), there are lexemes (number starting with L) and there are properties (number starting with P). If you make a proposal for a Wikidata property it needs to be made up of out those entities. Thinking in terms whether something is better labeled as City or CITY is a way to ignore the underlying concepts that exist in Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 02:42, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that my proposed properties are actually specific for the items they deal with, namely semantic frames. The idea of a 'frame element', 'subframe of', etc. are quite specific to frames. If it helps, you can consult one of the introductions to frame semantics to understand them better (for instance, Sullivan 2013, Frames and constructions in metaphoric language).
    Indeed, everything I have proposed uses those three categories (L, Q, and P). It is, of course, important to distinguish between a lexeme and a 'concept' in a Wikidata project, and of course among different types of concepts (a simple example being say between 'cat' and 'dog'). My point about the difference in labelling some City or CITY is meant exactly to resolve the confusion which I think is affecting you. On the one hand, there is the general convention in linguistics of using capital letters to refer to a semantic object (i.e. a 'concept') rather than a linguistic entity like a spoken or written work. Thus CITY is the concept that is, shall we say, 'mentally associated' with the written word 'city'. This includes references to semantic frames, which are concepts. Yet I do think for most people (especially those not versed in frame semantics), simply equating concepts with frames is misleading. If you were to ask someone to elaborate on their understanding of a concept like 'City', they likely would not give you an answer showing they are thinking in terms of frames (e.g. semantic roles, affordances, scripts), even if the theory of semantic frames itself argues that most of what we call 'concepts' should in fact be seen as frames. Put another way, if you ask someone to describe their conception of a dog, they will likely tell you some physical characteristics of a prototypical image of a dog. But frame theory itself says that the concept of a dog, as it is stored in the brain, importantly includes affordances and related roles that likely do not emerge in someone's verbal description (e.g. the dog's owner, a leash, how a dog typically acts and sounds, what a person is supposed to do with a dog, etc.). Understanding a concept 'as' a frame, or thinking of the closest frame that encapsulates whatever the person is thinking of as the concept, is important for understanding my proposed properties and the related issue of labeling items.
    Indeed, this raises the question of whether many of the concepts (i.e. Q-items) in Wikidata should automatically be used to represent frames, since they must both describe semantic roles and (for the purposes of my current project) reflect the semantic frames existing in ancient Mesopotamia (rather than say, the modern USA). From a database design perspective, it may not be appropriate to use the concept of City (Q515) to represent the Mesopotamian frame of a city, or it may still be possible. I don't know yet. However, I believe that issue is technically separate from the status of the proposed properties.
    The fact that Wikidata labels what it calls 'concepts' without all capitals is fine since the matter is one of convention. However, I used the label CITY specifically to highlight that we are speaking about a semantic frame rather than just a 'concept' per se. What I wrote above indicates this may both be a general issue of understanding by the user (what a frame is) and an issue of culturally specific frames (whether, say, a Mesopotamian city seen as a frame is approximated by the Wikidata Q-item of City). Sinleqeunnini (talk) 22:11, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sinleqeunnini: In Wikidata we are always either speaking about items, properties or lexemes. If you want to engage here you have to accept those terms as the basic ontology of Wikidata. It's fine for Sullivan to use an ontology where city and CITY refer to different things, but that's Sullivan's ontology and not Wikidata's. On Wikidata it's items, properties and lexemes.
    A proposed property needs valid examples of how the property will be used. Again, those examples need to be expressed in terms of items, properties and lexemes. Currently, you have not put any valid example that's made up of those into the property proposal template for any of the properties you proposed. Seperately, you would also need to write property descriptions to have valid proposals. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe I have followed that ontology of items, properties, and lexemes. My purpose in using the ontological terms from linguistics was to make clearer to you the need and benefit of my proposed properties. If it helps, here I will restrict myself to using the three terms items, properties, and lexemes. Recall that you initially raised objections to the use of the proposed properties, whose justifications come precisely from understanding what semantic frames are and how they work. For instance, you said above:
    ": Lugal (Q854642)lexical unitcity (Q515) tells a Wikidata user very little of how Lugal (Q854642) and city (Q515) relate to each other. Besides, there isn't anything lexical about any of the two by the dictionary definition of "lexical". I find "relating to the words or vocabulary of a language" and "relating to or of the nature of a lexicon or dictionary" as definition for lexical. Those items are not about words or vocabulary.
    If we wanted to link from Q854642 to Q515 the related property would be something like "rules over the jurisdiction" on an equivalent of that."
    But this objection fails to understand how the items Lugal (Q854642) and city (Q515) are understood, namely as frames (Q115792501) or frame elements (Q116999706) (with the status of such items as frames perhaps expressed by the 'instance of' property). Not all items are frames, but Lugal and city are, or perhaps city is, with Lugal being a frame element of city. If we are interested in relationships between items that are frames (including their relation to lexical items), then the properties 'frame element of', 'subframe of', 'elaboration of', and 'lexical unit' are of primary importance. Those (and others like them) are relationships at the exact level of generality needed to describe how items that are frames relate to each other in general. While the property 'rules over the jurisdiction' is more specific to the items Lugal and city, it cannot be used to describe the relationship between other items that are frames and their elements, such as leash (Q384873) and dog walking (Q38438).
    Note that now there are full examples of the proposal for 'frame element' property and 'lexical unit' property. Sinleqeunnini (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sinleqeunnini You still haven't provided a single example in the templates that's made up of lexemes/properties/items. If you are not willing to do so, maybe it's better to just end this discussion?
    If you suggest that city (Q515) should have instance of (P31) "frame" that's quite a big ask from Wikidata and I don't see that you have made an argument about why that would be desireable for Wikidata that goes beyond "it's the same model that people use somewhere in linguistics". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:54, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Is what I provided in the proposal for the property 'frame element of' (i.e. Wikidata:Property proposal/frame element of) not a proper example? Sinleqeunnini (talk) 21:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sinleqeunnini Is the proposal of 'frame element of' you provided English language strings. As I said above, it's items, lexemes and properties. Items have Q-numbers, properties P-numbers and lexemes L-numbers. lexical unit now has one example that actually an example and needs two more. I usually don't work much with lexemes I didn't talk about senses before. Are you sure that a lexeme is the right thing and that a sense wouldn't be more fitting for lexical unit? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:31, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I finally see what was wrong. I will fill out the remaining examples in a bit.
    Well, apart from the issue of homonymy (bank = river bank versus bank = place for money) in frame theory I believe it should be lexical units rather than senses since senses are themselves understood as frames. A lexeme thus can (and usually does) evoke many different frames.
    However, I see here a potential problem since in my set-up lexical units are treated largely as linguistic tokens divorced from semantic information. They 'evoke' semantic content in the form of frames. The Wikidata template for lexemes specifies senses of the lexeme as suffixes (e.g. L9999-S1, L9999-S2). If we want to say that senses in Wikidata convey the content of frames, that makes the identifiers for those frames an extension of L-numbers, whereas frames should mainly be seen as Q-numbered things (i.e. concepts). Sinleqeunnini (talk) 21:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello,
    I added more appropriate examples now. Sinleqeunnini (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @ChristianKl Hello. Can you please check if the examples are now satisfactory? Sinleqeunnini (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the examples are now clear. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:04, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought some more about this. While the proposal is now finally in a state where it's a clear proposal, I don't feel good about it. Instead of accepting the existing ontology the proposal suggests we should see certain items ontologically as frame which isn't a basic concept of our Wikidata ontology. Trying to fit it in isn't helpful for a consistent ontology. I would be open for a differently named property for the relationship exhibited in the examples.  Oppose ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:23, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ok. I've decided to implement these ideas on my own wikibase. It's easier to do everything that way. Megamattc (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, doing that project in a separate Wikibase is likely good given that the ontological assumptions of your project are quite different. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 01:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

exception to constraint (lexeme)

   On hold
Descriptionlexeme that is an exception to the constraint, qualifier to define a property constraint in combination with P2302
Data typeLexeme
Domainproperty
Example 1Breton Favereau dictionary lexeme ID (P11068)single-value constraint (Q19474404) except korrandon (L628622)
Example 2Breton Favereau dictionary lexeme ID (P11068)single-value constraint (Q19474404) except kaoc'h (L627729)
Example 3DWDS lemma ID (P9940)single-value constraint (Q19474404) except Cyberstrategie (L905505)
Example 4DWDS lemma ID (P9940)distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) except Bändel (L815181) and Bendel (L815180)
Example 5Nynorskordboka-ID (P10041)distinct-values constraint (Q21502410) except daglegstove (L1141770) and daglegstue (L1141771)
See alsoexception to constraint (P2303)

Motivation

For constraints, we need the equivalent of exception to constraint (P2303), but for lexemes. In particular, it is necessary for identifier properties used on lexemes (usually linking to dictionaries which often have a few weird exceptions like natural languages often have).

Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE)
Jarekt - mostly interested in properties related to Commons
MisterSynergy
John Samuel
Sannita
Yair rand
Jon Harald Søby
Pasleim
Jura
PKM
ChristianKl
Sjoerddebruin
Fralambert
Manu1400
Was a bee
Malore
Ivanhercaz
Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Pizza1016
Ogoorcs
ZI Jony
Eihel
cdo256
Epìdosis
Dhx1
99of9
Mathieu Kappler
Lectrician1
SM5POR
Infrastruktur

Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Identifiant Artcena

   Done: Artcena ID (P12756) (Talk and documentation)
DescriptionIdentifier of cultural organizations in the ARTCENA database
RepresentsARTCENA (Q60674444)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainélément, Q105815710
Example 1Q2851554→ORG002239 annibal-et-ses-elephants
Example 2Q2868810→ORG000170 atelier-231-cnarep
Example 3Q2815417→ORG002157 26000-couverts
Sourcehttps://www.artcena.fr/annuaire
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.artcena.fr/annuaire/organismes/$1
Robot and gadget jobscollecter des données
Wikidata projectQ60674444

Motivation

ARTCENA est une association sous tutelle du Ministère de la Culture née de la fusion de deux structures publiques culturelles : Hors les murs et le Centre National du théâtre (CNT) en 2016. ARTCENA est le principal centre de ressources dans le secteur du théâtre, des arts de la rue et du cirque en France. Sa base de données est riche et représentative des organismes de ces secteurs sur le territoire français. Il semble pertinent que les identifiants uniques de cette structure culturelle se retrouvent dans les éléments de wikidata. Joe Brable (talk) 22:25, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Hijri Date

   Not done
DescriptionHijri Date of claim as written in the source
Data typeString
DomainAll time claims may take this qualifier
Allowed values[\-]?[1-9][0-9]*(\-[0-1][0-9](\-[0-3][0-9])?)?
Example 1Muhammad (Q9458) -> date of death (P570) -> "632-06-08" -> qualifier(Hijri date) -> "11-03-12"
Example 2Avicenna (Q8011)-> date of death (P570) -> "1037" -> qualifier(Hijri date) -> "428-09" only year and month in original source
Example 3Battle of Badr (Q486124) -> point in time (P585) -> "624-03-12" julian -> qualifier(Hijri date) -> "2-09-17"
Sourcew:Islamic calendar
Planned useAll the dates that were mentioned in the sources as a Hijri date must have this qualifier

التحفيز

There is no way to enter the Hijri date in Wikidata. Some users use refine date (P4241) qualifier and value elements are part of (P361) of Islamic calendar (Q28892), but this not the purpose of refine date (P4241) and reported as violations in Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P4241

This new property will resolve this problem.

This property will be a qualifier property for any time data claim.

The value may be only year (Y), (year and month (Y-MM)) or (year, month and day(Y-MM-DD)) no time allowed. the format of the value will be like ISO 8601 format with some differs:

  • No zero year, the year before 1 is -1.
  • No leading zero required for year.

Using string value make it easy to retrieve data and reformat it. --حبيشان (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  •  Oppose It should be specified which Hijri calendar will be added as a value, given the lack of a universal Hijri calendar, since it historically depended almost entirely on sighting the new moon, which was different geographically, and even from community to another. If it's a calendar based on astronomical calculations, could it not be calculated from the Gregorian calendar? In which case, a simple conversion option could be added. If not, there is risk that multiple values will be entered, and there will likely always be an uncertainty of a few days as to the exact date.--Ideophagous (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ideophagous Multiple values is not a RISK most of properties accept multiple values.
    • Islamic history events that were recorded in their references exclusively in the Hijri date How do you think you can enter their date data in Wikidata, do you have a solution.
    • You refuse to enter the Hijri date on the pretext that it did not indicate the type of Hijri Calendar entered, while you accept the registration of historical facts with a Gregorian date while it recorded in the references with a Hijri date without mentioning the method of converting the Hijri date to Gregorian!!
    • It is safer to record the Hijri date as stated in the reference without any modification, and then leave it to the user to choose the appropriate conversion method.
    حبيشان (talk) 04:47, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @حبيشان. Maybe the property then should be called "Sourced Hijri Date" or Hijri Date in Source" or such, and the addition of a source has to be mandatory, because I'm sure some editors will simply start converting from Gregorian to Hijri without adding a source. Ideophagous (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ideophagous: dates always have a part of uncertainty and fuzzyness, even inside one "universal" calendar. There is nothing we can do about it, it works mostly well for Julian and Gregorian calendars, I don't see why it wouldn't work for Hijri. It could be a parameter in the datatype and if not, ranks, context and qualifiers could always be used to understand the date. That point is not a problem here. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:46, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ideophagous Customize the date under (add qualifier) and include the Hijri date feature, and it is preferable for the user to include a reference to it. Mohammed Qays (talk) 11:02, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @حبيشان. For a date, multiple values is a necessary evil, not a desirable feature. Uncertainty about an exact date may exist, but in the case of the Hijri Calendar it takes a whole new proportion. 12 Dhu Al Hijja 523 in Arabia is not necessarily 12 Dhu Al Hijja 523 in Morocco. If two events are dated to that day, but happened in different places, how can we know if they happened on the same day or not? Conversely if two events at different locations have different Hijri dates on Wikidata, how do we know they didn't happen on the same day, or how many days exactly separate them? Anyways, if you add the condition that the user will at least see a warning if they don't add a source (without exception), I will switch my vote to a weak support. Ideophagous (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ideophagous If the source mentions the day of the week (as most of hostrical sources). day of week (P2894) can be added and it will give a clear point of time and exact confersion to other calendars. Adding warnig for missing the source is good but with exception of publication date (P577) because it will circular citation. حبيشان (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support The Hijri date is one of the important dates for Arab and Islamic societies, and there are events, births and deaths recorded in it. It is very important to us as an Arab and Muslim society. Mohammed Qays (talk) 10:32, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support. It's a very important property for Islamic Articles. And our friend حبيشان has the technical experience to help in any technical support needed for this addition.--Dr-Taher (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support.--RASHEEDYE (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support عبدالعزيز علي (talk) 10:22, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support أيمن 1974 (talk) 18:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  per above Germartin1 (talk) 13:37, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong support, Hijri calender is very important. Islamic scholars and societies have written down their hisotry, events and other records by using it. Thus we can enrich wikidata by enormous knowledge if we add this property. Ahmed Naji Talk 11:21, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Strong oppose Storing dates as strings is not structured data. I think refine date (P4241) is the right property for this until there is proper support for more calendars. It is a common and valid use of the qualifier, the constraint violations report is wrong. If you look at the item page or Special:ConstraintReport instead, it isn't shown as a constraint violation. - Nikki (talk) 15:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikki @Germartin1 @VIGNERON @Ideophagous We can change datatype to item. حبيشان (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Conditional support when phab:T206973 is implemented - it's clearly important data but neither string data type or point in time are currently acceptable for this. --Lewis Hulbert (talk) 18:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. حبيشان, I would suggest you create a new proposal if/when phab:T206973 implemented. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

intervener

   Not done
Descriptionname of a third-party group or person allowed to participate in a legal case
Representsintervention (Q2292948)
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5), organization (Q43229)
Example 1York University v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Q108085698)→QThe Writers' Union of Canada (Q8038449)
Example 2CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Q5009584)→QAccess Copyright (Q4672434)
Example 3Eurobank Ergasias S.A. v. Bombardier inc. (Q125349256)→QCanadian Bankers Association (Q1032046)
Sourcehttps://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/search-recherche-eng.aspx, e.g. https://www.scc-csc.ca/case-dossier/info/af-ma-eng.aspx?cas=39856
Planned useTo create a Wikidata project for Canadian Supreme Court cases and to start populating SCC entries with this property
Number of IDs in source"Interveners make submissions in about half of the cases heard by the Supreme Court of Canada" (https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1086&context=ohlj)
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Implied notabilityWikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316)
See alsoplaintiff (P1620), defendant (P1591)

Motivation

Half of Supreme Court of Canada decisions are made with third-parties called interveners and it has even been said that you can tell how important a case by the number of interveners allowed to weigh in on a pending legal decision (https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4029&context=scholarly works) The role of interveners are of great interest to legal scholars, political scientists, and activists. At present, legal cases allow for a plaintiff and a respondent to be properties of a legal case, but not third party intervenes who are also allowed to present documents to the court. Interveners should be considered an 'input' to a legal decision and not an 'outcome' and as such, they don't belong as 'part of' a decision of the judges. Happy to clarify any of the above. Note: I've asked WikiProject Canadian law for comment. Copystar (talk) 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

model for and its inverse property modeled by

   Not done
Descriptionwhat the subject is a conceptual or scientific model/theory for
Representsmodel (Q1979154)
Data typeItem
Domainitem (instance of/subclass of conceptual model (Q2623243) or formula (Q976981) or model (Q1979154) or theory (Q17737)… )
Example 1data model (Q1172480) → data (Q42848)
Example 2database model (Q267136) → database (Q8513)
Example 3abstract data type (Q827335) → data type (Q190087)
Example 4Navier–Stokes equations (Q201321) → fluid dynamics (Q216320)
Example 5Peano axioms (Q842755) → non-negative integer (Q28920052)
Example 6hybrid system (Q2665508) → cyber-physical system (Q1120057)
See alsohas role in modeling (P6530), computes solution to (P2159), approximation algorithm (P1171), is the study of (P2578) Property sometimes abused for this relationship : is the study of (P2578), for example used in the relativity theory item to link to spacetime.

Motivation

There are many conceptual models and formulas that are a model for some thing. It would be nice to be able to express these relations with a simple property instead of having to use awkward statements such as abstract data type (Q827335)subclass of (P279)mathematical model (Q486902)of (P642)data type (Q190087).

There is also has role in modeling (P6530) but that does not express the same relation "has role in modeling X" does not mean that it's a model for X ... but rather that it is a part of a model for X.

Other properties (by User:Fgnievinski like represents/represented by are misused to represent this relationship.


Previously
a 2016 proposal ; a more recent one (this one is basically a reopening of the previous more examples, from the discussion)
User:Push-f, the creator of the last proposal, withdrew the proposal with reason I withdraw my proposal in favor of using statements like Xhas use (P366)scientific modeling (Q1116876)of (P642)Y, and the discussion was closed by a property creator asking for a new one, which is this one. There were only support the property.

I reopen because the model proposed by Push-f is using of (P642) View with SQID qualifier on a usage Search statement which is deprecated, and because I think this is a genuine relationship, very common and many examples that deserves its own property. It's also simpler, note that the model does not seem to be much used only 4 results to a corresponding query.

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, YULdigitalpreservation, ArthurPSmith, Andrew Su, Salgo60, Andrawaag: @Yair rand: (also pinging the participants to the has role in modelling discussion as I discover this was the initial proposal and it is related to [the OBO discussion https://github.com/oborel/obo-relations/issues/288] that discussed more specific properties. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

discussion

Tobias1984
Snipre
Physikerwelt
Pamputt
Petermahlzahn
Jibe-b
Restu20
Daniel Mietchen
TomT0m
ArthurPSmith
Mu301
Sarilho1
SR5
DavRosen
Danmichaelo
Ptolusque
PhilMINT
Malore
Thibdx
Ranjithsiji
Niko.georgiev
Simon Villeneuve
Toni 001
Marc André Miron
DePiep
RShigapov
CarlFriedberg
Crocodilecoup
Mkomboti
Amorenobr (talk) 01:27, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Valverde667 (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
fgnievinski

Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

Participants of the old discussion ping : @Push-f, The-erinaceous-one, Tinker Bell, Fgnievinski:

Being a proposer you don't have to vote for your own proposal. Please note that having your own vote does not give you an advantage when creating a property. See WD:PCC. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma Please consider the circumstances, this is actually a reopening of an old proposal I actually voted for. It's recreated, actually, after the property creator closing which is actually questionable because the initial proposer closed it with a bad idea and the proposal actually had only support. Creating a regular proposal on Wikidata is usually an arduous journey, please don't be a cold actor making this actually more difficult. We have very few reviewers in a lot of cases, and this is the third attempt for this important and legitimate one. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:59, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TomT0m: I understand, but there are certain criteria for property creation. When you create a proposal, it is already implied that you support it and in the course of the discussion other participants who see this proposal may or may not agree with it (as in this case based on the comments below), so your own vote is not necessary. Also your vote looks rather suspicious. Why suspicious? Because this way I might think that you are deliberately or mistakenly trying to confuse property creators, who seeing your single vote might end up creating the property in question, which is against WD:PCC. In short: you don't have to vote for your own property, because as soon as you create a proposal it is already assumed that you support it. An additional vote in favor can only raise questions from the property creators, since such an action could be considered as vote manipulation. I hope I've made myself clear. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No/reject. I'm responding to the posting over at WPPhys. My knee-jerk reaction is that this is a terrible idea, demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of physics and/or science in general. If you're going to link spacetime to general relativity, then what happened to Newton or Cartan or MOND? Are you pronouncing all these other theories of spacetime to be bad/wrong/rejected? What about Kaluza Klein? Is your space-time 5-dimensional, with hidden dimensions? Kaluza-Klein did their work in the 1920's; Einstein himself spent decades on it, its a foundational concept in string theory, but you're going to reject it because you've got some preconceived notion about spacetime that matches what the folks on reddit talk about? As to the equations themselves: they also apply to fluid mechanics, and to configurations of lattices, e.g. the black hole solution (schwarzschild solution) is a soliton, that is, a Lax pair, (Belinski-Zakharov), so are you going to link Lax pairs to gravitation? Or to water (KdV eqn) or to nuclear physics (say, Skyrme model)? The QCD confinemnt of the skyrme model, the quarks can be unconfined by shrinking Einstein spacetime to about 3-4 times the size of a nucleus, at which point, the Skyrmion kind of melts and releases all the quarks: confinement is gone, due to high local space-time curvature. So is nuclear physics all about space-time, now? Yes, I've written a tirade here, but the point is to show that classifying relationships in the sciences are necessarily vague and tenuous when they're correct, and inhibit forward progress, becoming dangerous when enforced by some cultural committee. 67.198.37.16 17:38, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can link several theories to one kind of objects, this is not a monopolistic claim, no problem with that, it's just a claim about what theory is about what kind of object is all. You can link both Newton and MOND and Cartan to "spacetime" if that's relevant. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:43, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will you link space-time to 5-dimensional spacetime? There are several kinds of 5D spacetimes: the KK one, mentioned above, but also the recent results on 5D black holes with naked singularities and Cauchy horizons. They're two different kinds of 5D spacetimes. Then of course, the affine lie algebras are 26-dimensional spacetimes, unless they're fermionic, in which case they're 10-D. The obvious solution is to say "if wikipedia article X has a wikilink to topic Y in it, then X and Y are related". But to try to then say "the relationship between X and Y is that of theory and model" runs afoul of the details. 67.198.37.16 18:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(p.s. looking at above examples: the descriptive set theory people and the reverse mathematics people might not like your link of peano axioms to the non-negative integers. Seems like a flawed understanding of what the peano axioms are trying to do, and what they are actually used for, in day-to-day applications: how people actually use them, and what they are good for, as opposed to the ostensible "thing they describe": They describe a fragment of set theory; that fragment has a model which happens to include the non-negative integers. But what matters are the results of model theory, and not that one possible model just happens to be the non-negative integers.) 67.198.37.16 17:55, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Peano axioms are used to define the integers, in a formal model, and addition, etc. The fact that there are other models is not a problem for this property, as already said before.
As for your previous point, this property is not intended to solve all the problems nor to model every possible relationship like "this article as a link to that other one", this is nonsense. But yes, N-dimensional theories about spacetime may be link to space and time, what would precisely be the problem ? author  TomT0m / talk page 18:32, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(anyway, the sentence about the links on Wikipedia pages seems to imply you are kind of against the whole Wikidata idea, so … why coming here commenting, upset about me talking about this on enwiki ?) author  TomT0m / talk page 19:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could somebody explain why the property 'objet of a theory' is not sufficient to link a theory to an object  ? The idea of model (in science) has been much discussed in history of science and it is historically strange to apply this for instance to the Peano axioms. Perhaps, one should change the name of "object of a theory" to "important object in or for a theory", but "model" for me describes a very specific type of link (perhaps too specific for a property in Wikidata, as it may lead to debates, depending on one's epistemologic views). Thank you in advance. --Cgolds (talk) 09:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cgolds What property are you referring to precisely is the study of (P2578) (it's intended to link academic fields to their objects) ? has role in modeling (P6530) (which may fit but I find the example stranges, it links gene items to deseases) ? I can't find anything searching that label.
    I understand that in "model theory" in maths indeed this is kind of reversed, as the "specification" (the axioms) and the objects that have theses properties (natural numbers for peano axioms) are called "models" of the theory, so yes, the term seems to be a bit off but this is the exception ? If we look at the article about « fr:Modèle scientifique », although there are not many sources, kind of reflects what is usually understand as a scientific model nowdays, and it's in that sense I think it's used.
    For I dug a bit, because the "gene - disease" relationship seems way to broad, a gene is not by itself a model or a theory for a disease in any sense, that's why they renamed it : see this related discussion on the OBO ontology in link with the discussion on Wikidata about the proposal. They are talking about more specific relationships if needed, in relationship with Wikidata, and I think that's exactly related to this proposal. A gene may indeed "has a role" in modeling a disease, but it's usually far from being a whole model by itself ? They broadened the label from "is model of" to "has role in modelling" out of practical problems it seems, because it was in practice or they wanted to use it like that. I think Wikidata is larger so I think we could benefit from clarity. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @TomT0m I was indeed refering to objet de la discipline (P2578), but if I understand you well, this property means "what is the object(ive) of the discipline" (and it would have been better to call it "subject" then :), not "an important object of the discipline". Or is your problem with "discipline" instead of "theory" ? It is true that "model" is not very appropriate for mathematics, but even in physics you may have a lot of discussions (see above !). For the (general) relativity theory, I understood that it modelizes gravitation more than spacetime (although of course the issue theory vs model(ization) is already a difficult topic). We are looking for for "object playing an important role in" or something of the kind. Cgolds (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cgolds yes, this is this meaning, "objet" have both meanings this may be ambiguous (I think I proposed the property, and it was labelled study of but properties have a way of living their life in Wikidata, I can't fully tell what happened after). I make a difference between the process of studying something and the body of knowledge this process produces. Theories and models are output. If physics eventually everything is bound to model the real world if you take a realistic point of view, which I think we should do. Something else like "nominalism" is self-referential, in practice we reflect visions and descriptions of the world, but … how different visions are tight to each over ?
    I don't think it's a problem to model both gravity and spacetime, why should this be exclusive. Although yes, "spacetime" if you look at the wikipedia articles like en:spacetime is actually defined as a class of model in which space and time are intimately tight. But in the real world it can be translated as "if we take two clocks in two referentials that moves relatively fast from each other you cannot get them synchronised, you have to take into account there speed relative to each other (and the mass repartition, for GR) to make sense of it.
    There is also the distinction of a theory and a model, a theory can be entirely abstract but if you want to make a model of the world, say a climate model, you have to take measures and datas from the real world to feed the equations, of course. Is it a real problem here ?
    "object playing an important role in" really feels like a catch all almost meaningless relationship. The question is "but what role is this ? What kind of importance" ? (oh, it's too hard and philosophical, so we gave up). If you can link almost anything to almost anything it's probably a bad idea, I think we should avoid such properties. We have a couple of them like facet of (P1269) View with SQID that people sometimes use when they don't know what to use. I think it's not really good because we don't then make the effort of asking ourselve if there is a more precise and purposeful relationship that could be created.
    To take the example of a climate model and the earth climate "has a role in modeling" is really an understatement. "simulates" would be a much better choice. author  TomT0m / talk page 17:54, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a real problem with this, because space-time and gravitation do not play the same role in (general) relativity theory. Would you say that Newton's theory modelizes space (or time for that matter) ? Space and time (or later space-time) is a constituent/a fundamental element of the theory, but the theory does not modelize (or theoretize or simulates or ... whatever is your philosophical viewpoint on the issue) it. A climate model modelizes the earth climate, but neither the earth nor the PDEs at the basis of the model (if it is a model with PDEs). Perhaps we need indeed two properties, something like "modelizes" (gravition, earth climate etc) and something like "is a constituent of" or "a constitutive element of" or something of the kind (space-time, PDE, ...). It would be nice to have some other inputs, would not it  ? Cgolds (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎total loans

   Not done
Descriptiontotal value of loans given out by a bank or financial institution
Representsloan (Q189539)
Data typeQuantity
Domainmostly banks
Allowed unitscurrency
ExampleOrient Finans Bank (Q125490253) → UZB 141.26 trillion (March 1, 2024)
SourceWikipedia infoboxes, various external sources
Robot and gadget jobsPossibly imports from infoboxes
See alsototal assets (P2403)

Motivation

We need a way to reflect the total value of loans given to clients currently outstanding by a bank, this is an important data item for banks and some other financial institutions. --Fordaemdur (talk) 21:18, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

pacing

   Not done
Descriptionvideo game mechanic based on the rhythm of the player's actions
Data typeItem
Example 1Civilization: Call to Power (Q1027136)→turn-based (Q74023227)
Example 2Madden NFL 24 (Q119238637)→real-time (Q74023731)
Example 3Fallout 76 (Q54497595)→persistent world (Q736958)

Motivation

The video games have different types of rhythm mechanic. They can be divided into three or even four categories: turn-based, real-time, persistent (and even medidative or zen, when the goal of the video game is to relax the player).

Nevertheless, there is not a real specific property for this. That's why I suggest this one.

Nota: in French, we could translate it by "rythme narratif", but if you have a better suggestion, please let me know. :)

applsdev Arlo Barnes BugWarp Coloradohusky CptViraj Cupkake4Yoshi Cwf97 Cynde Moya Danrok Datumizer Dexxor Diggr Dispenser Dollarsign8 DoublePendulumAttractor EdoAug Edolusill Eniehack Facenapalm Floyd-out FullyAwesome Harshrathod50 Jean-Frédéric Keplersj Kirilloparma Lewis Hulbert LotsofTheories Macocobovi Macrike Master Of Ninja Matthias M. Metafire18 Nicereddy Odjob16 Oduci Poslovitch Rampagingcarrot RampantSpirit Santer Sight Contamination thgiex Tomodachi94 VGPaleontologist Wd-Ryan WikiSyn YotaMoteuchi

Notified participants of WikiProject Video games

YotaMoteuchi (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

In English, the label should be 'pacing' which is used very often in other sites or databases. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
'Pacing' sounds fine to me. Arlo Barnes (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me pacing sounds like something subjective. "The game had great pacing." like a reviewer might say. It does not feel like a strict category. I am not a native speaker though. Matthias M. (talk) 10:34, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't recommend game mechanics (P4151) here. Indeed, if you refer to the discussion of the property proposal Wikidata:Property proposal/Système de jeu, you will see that it has been proposed for role games and gamebooks. That's why I suggest this 'Pacing' property. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
game mechanics (P4151) is used for video games as well. For instance, you may find it used for open world games. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that game mechanics (P4151) is now used for video games, which detracts from the origin of the property. I think we're using a polysemantic word for a lot of unrelated things. Wouldn't using a more specific property be more appropriate? YotaMoteuchi (talk) 07:18, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma: would you like to give your opinion based on the response? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the response? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@YotaMoteuchi: Well, I'm not exactly saying that we don't need a specific property. It's just that if you look at the {{Games properties}} template in the "All Games" category, you can see that there are some properties related to games, board games and video games that are reciprocally used and that's why we don't have for example a separate property called "video game mechanics" because we already have a semantically correct game mechanics (P4151) property. Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that point of view. On another hand, some properties are quite similar (on another subect, for example, based on (P144) and inspired by (P941)) and it's not very easy to know if we need a more specific property in some cases.
Here, as I said Property:P4151 is a little mishmash, that's why I suggested this property. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma:, shall we proceed? Or do you have any objections? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 19:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Here too, game mechanics (P4151) shouldn't be used as I said before. Regarding the way it can be inferred from the genre, sometimes, a same game can refer to two types of 'pacing'. FF12 have a "real-time" pacing when you are walking over the world and a "turn-based" when you fight agains monsters. So, a genre is not always a good way to infer the 'pacing'. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dexxor:, any changes in your opinion based on the response? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 12:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kirilloparma, Dexxor: pining for attention. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:24, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZI Jony: I change my !vote to  Weak support because pcgamingwiki.com also has a pacing property. Dexxor (talk) 11:57, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Wait /  Oppose I actually agree we need something like that (I have long been thinking of something along these lines), but I think the proposal is under-developed. For the video game part of things, I would us to have a clearer picture of acceptable values (are the 3 in examples the only ones? Would Active Time Battle (Q1796885) for example be acceptable?), have mappings to other ontologies (does the Video Game Metadata Schema (Q61572854) have something like that?) and databases (what do Moby, IGDB, Glitchwave do here?). Does the future property also make sense for eg board games? The proposal is called “rythme narratif” in French, does it mean we need to involve Wikiproject Narration? Also, I don’t think property proposals are the best place to hold such discussions, and that we really should talk about such things beforehand. This is expected to be a major data modelling addition for a domain with close to 100K items, and it would go ahead with a bare 3 "weak support"? I think we need more work and more consensus here. Jean-Fred (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (Also, for clarity: I would be more than happy to help with that work (research and consensus-building) ; but the timing of that proposal did not work great for me this time. I don’t blame ZI Jony for trying to move things forwards (indeed, without you, the proposal would have died down!) but I think the shorter lifecycle of property proposals can be at odds with the necessary research/discussion time) Jean-Fred (talk) 06:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello @Jean-Frédéric. Just for answering you regarding some points.
    I didn't found any pacing property on Video Game Metadata Schema (Q61572854). I can tell the same for IGDB or Glitchwave.
    Anyway, for Mobygames (and to tell the truth, it's this website who inspired this property here), we can found this category with the following genres: Meditative / Zen, Persistent, Real-time and Turn-based.
    This category can be also found on PCGamingWiki which is adding the Continuous turn-based genre.
    Checking some other websites, I found also that we could add a sub-genre of "real-time"; it could be "real-time with pause", but I guess it's the case for any "real-time" game (or 99% of these games) which should use a pause key or anthing like that.
    For the board games, yes, I would suggest a "turn-based" value.
    Regarding the French proposal, I tried to translate it and only found the expression "rythme narratif". I know that it's not the best translation but I couldn't find any French expression around the websites which could describe this property. Do you have another suggestion?
    YotaMoteuchi (talk) 22:43, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we either need to chop up genre into tags like MobyGames or reject this. Turn based is redundant to turn-based strategy video game (Q2176159) and does not really apply to anything other than strategy games. I also fail to see the rhythm in persistent world (Q736958) which then overlaps with game mechanic. Also for third person shooters something like bullet time (Q126449936) is a game mechanic and not "rythme narratif" whatever that means. It would be "Erzählrhythmus" in German which is a technical term used to explain the montage in movies. So I  Oppose as well. Matthias M. (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 07:27, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎is ontological root of

   Not done
Descriptionforms the root element of the ontology
Data typeItem
Example 1anatomical entity (Q27043950)→Uberon (Q7876491)
Example 2entity (Q35120)→Basic Formal Ontology (Q4866972)
Example 3chemical entity (Q43460564)→ChEBI (Q902623)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Ontology (Q60005226)

Motivation

Replacing the usage of of (P642) in this context.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChristianKl (talk • contribs) at 16:33, April 25, 2024‎ (UTC).

Discussion

identifiant Inventaire du patrimoine immobilier culturel

   Not done
Descriptionidentifiant Inventaire du patrimoine immobilier culturel (fr) – (Please translate this into English.)
Data typeString
Template parameterfr:Modèle:Inventaire Wallonie
Example 1Liège City Hall (Q679207) => 62063-INV-0699-02
Example 2Saint Waltrude Collegiate Church (Q1720565) => 53053-INV-0604-02
Example 3Miranda Castle (Q2351086) => 91072-INV-0086-01
Sourcehttps://lampspw.wallonie.be/dgo4/site_ipic/index.php

Motivation

As other heritage property ID --CrucialFriend (talk) 16:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

located in the Islamic territorial entity

   Not done
Descriptionthe item is located on the territory of the following Islamic entity.
Representsreligious administrative entity (Q51041800)
Data typeItem
Domainmosque (Q32815), zawiya (Q2001465), madrasa (Q132834)
Example 1Djamaa El Djazaïr (Q23012984) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 2Djamaa El Kebir (Q2386475) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 3Djamaa al-Djedid (Q12192958) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 4Sidi Ramdan Mosque (Q25453836) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 5Ketchaoua Mosque (Q2471799) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 6Zawiyet Sidi Boumerdassi (Q42332257) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 7Zawiyet Sidi Ali Debbaghi (Q54863342) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 8Zawiyet Sidi Saadi (Q54863339) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 9Al-Fath Mosque (Q110236574) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 10Uthman ibn Affan Mosque (Q110288564) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 11Abderrahmane Ibn Khaldun Mosque (Q110245483) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 12Jabir ibn Hayyan Mosque (Q110245385) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
See alsolocated in the religious territorial entity (P5607), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), located in statistical territorial entity (P8138)

Motivation

As for administrative units, it is useful to have a property to indicate the Islamic unity in which is located a mosque (Q32815), a zawiya (Q2001465), a madrasa (Q132834), etc. --Soufiyouns (talk) 09:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

‎Yandex.Music track ID

   Not done
DescriptionYandex.Music track ID
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainaudio track (Q7302866)
Example 1The Knot (Q109795369) -> 30124805
Example 2The bandits (Q113149889) -> 30168054
Example 3The Time Will Come (Progress Studies Humans' Behavior) (Q106098098) -> 113143569
Formatter URLhttps://music.yandex.ru/track/$1

Motivation

For Yandex.Music we already have label, genre, artist, album - lets add track. Vitaly Zdanevich (talk) 17:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

 Support Tracks are an important musical release component, therefore if Yandex is already offering property IDs for the above, adding this new one makes sense. Youyouca (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vitaly Zdanevich: It seems that URL formatter can be reworked a bit. Track links work even if album id = 0. So you can leave only track numbers as IDs, and replace the formatter with https://music.yandex.ru/album/0/track/$1. Solidest (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not sure if it's the right idea to rework P2819 into "album or track":
https://music.yandex.ru/album/30124805 - album ID leads to the podcast
https://music.yandex.ru/album/0/track/30124805 - the same track ID leads to a completely unrelated track. Solidest (talk) 09:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
single (Q134556) vs audio track (Q7302866). A single is a release (publication) of an audio track (sometimes with bonus tracks or B-sides). Audio track = composition/song recorded on a medium. I.e. a release is always consisted of audio tracks, which are recordings of the compositions. Here's the same song, but with different IDs: https://music.yandex.ru/album/18331155 = single, https://music.yandex.ru/track/91821112 = track. See also Wikidata WikiProject Music data model. Solidest (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

address of addressee

   Not done
Descriptionaddress of the address e.g. on a postcard
Data typeMonolingual text
Example 1A trip to Meissen (Q92739714)address of addresseeLeipziger Straße 57
Example 2Ausstellungspalast (Q109104529)address of addresseeBerliner Straße 24
Example 3Q109106149address of addresseeTilsiter Straße 41
Planned useI plan to use the property for the WikiProject Postcards on Commons

Motivation

The motivation of this proposal is to capture the data of backsides of postcards via SDC on Wikimedia Commons. So this property is thought to be mainly used as structured data on Commons, but can also be used for other items on Wikidata. The idea was first discussed here. The property should be used in combination with the properties street, housenumber, point in time and coordinate location. --CuratorOfThePast (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

 Oppose When it comes to the name of the sender of a post card, I would say that the sender is the author (P50) of the post card. The property for the addressee on the other hand is addressee (P1817). If we don't have a Wikidata item for either you can use unknown value Help with subject named as (P1810).
We have street address (P6375) that could be used as a qualifier on author (P50)/addressee (P1817). I don't see a need for a new property. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:29, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a super big fan of using author (P50) for something like this because it can be confused with the postcard publisher, illustrator/photographer of the postcard, Etc. Etc. In otherwards there's nothing inherent to "author" that makes it relate to the person who wrote the message on the card. Which is kind of the point. I think that's made clear by the fact that "also known as" includes terms like "maker" and "creator." So it would be cool if there was a property specifically for the writer of the message on the postal item instead of us just forcing us to use one that's so general it's essentially meaningless. Personally, I'd like to see separate properties for "sender", "sender address", "receiver", and "receiver address." I don't think addressee (P1817) alone really cuts it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:19, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The description for addressee is "person or organization to whom a letter or note is addressed". How is that different from "receiver"? What issue do you see with using street address (P6375) as a qualifier? I think there's value to having a standardized way within Wikidata to specify an address.
I see the argument for a separate property for sender. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:45, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: I guess it's semantics or how American English works but "addressee" isn't a super intuitive word. I think that's reflected in Google Search results for the term though. "People also ask: "Is the addressee the sender or receiver?", "What is the difference between addressee and address?" Etc. Etc. I guess it doesn't really matter, something being standardized also kind of insinuates it's universally understandable. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:56, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to the decision about whether or not to create new properties, it's important to look at the actual property. To the extend that a name of a property is hard to understand, the solution would be to change the name and not to create another property for the same content with a different name. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 00:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable. Although I wouldn't think its good to change the name of a property on a dime either. But then what would be the name of a comparable property to it for the address of the person sending the postal item, Addresser? Author address?--Adamant1 (talk) 05:08, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, changing the name of properties on a dime either. That's why it's generally important to put a lot of thought into creating new properties and don't create them willy-nilly.
As I said above,there's no good reason to have a property for "address of the person sending the postal item" and for the person receiving it. street address (P6375) used as qualifier does the job. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:12, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: Not to argue about it but if you look at the "Also known as" terms for street address (P6375) they include "address", "mailing address", "postal address" Etc. Etc. and the description simply says "full street address where subject is located." What we want here is a way to include both the sender and receiver's addresses as separate properties and there's nothing inherent to the term "subject" or "address" that says street address (P6375) is inherently (or exclusively) about the "address of the person sending the postal item." Essentially all I'm asking for in the meantime is that ""mailing address" be separated from the (clearly ambiguous) property for "address." And sure we could just use street address (P6375) for mailing address, but I'm telling as someone who has worked in the area for years on Commons that it doesn't work for what we want. Since "full street address where subject is located" can be either the address of the sender or receiver depending on the situation and we need something more specific. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you would use A trip to Meissen (Q92739714)street address (P6375)Leipziger Straße 57, that would be ambiguous. On the other hand if you use it as a qualifier and say A trip to Meissen (Q92739714)addressee (P1817)unknown value Helpstreet address (P6375)Leipziger Straße 57 there's no ambiguity.
It's worth noting here that if the postcards are notable enough to be saved and a person receives multiple postcards in many cases it will be good to have an item for that person, so that unknown value Help is not needed. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:18, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this way is not sufficient if your regular postcard is still notable but doesnt have a notable person on it. Still the person could be named more than once on a postcard. This will result in having many unknown values with no future intention of creating an corresponding item. I feel like this is against the intention of unknown values. It would be better in that case to use a suitable property for capturing data of the address sides of postcards. Also a dedicated property would a allow a straight forward query etc. of the data. This is now for some reason not possible. By the way I added a bunch of postcards with addressee and named as as qualifier and they do not show up in the query for the property for addresee: (Example) CuratorOfThePast (talk) 12:27, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not against the intention of unknown values. The documention explicitely says "Unknown value may also mean the value is a known object, but that there's currently no Wikidata item about the object. However, in this case it is strongly recommended to create an item for the object, if it meets the notability policy."
With the two expectation of author name string (P2093) and affiliation string (P6424). In those case we speak about tens of millions of items. If you say this will result in many such values, do we really have hundred of thousands items that fall under these criteria in commons? I would have guessed that we are talking here about a few thousand files which is not a significant amount? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's currenty around 400,000 images of postcards on Commons that have been categorized, about 20,000 more that we know of, and whatever number hasn't been found yet. admittedly we don't have images of the backsides to a lot of those and not all of the ones that we have images of them for are mailed, but there's got to be more them just a few thousand that are and I'd like to extend this to other postal items if its possible. Tangential to that, but it would at least be good if there was a solution to "addresee" not showing up in search queries if this doesn't end up going anywhere. Otherwise the whole thing just seems kind of pointless. Adamant1 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎Sinhala Cinema artist ID

Descriptionidentifier for persons from the Sinhala Cinema Database website
RepresentsSinhala Cinema Database (Q125925381)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Example 1Dinakshie Priyasad (Q5277921) → 4893
Example 2Eddie Jayamanne (Q16009606) → 2581
Example 3Rajitha Hiran (Q64746834) → 260
Sourcehttps://www.films.lk/
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Formatter URLhttps://www.films.lk/ArtistDetails.php?id=$1
CountrySri Lanka (Q854)
Applicable "stated in"-valueSinhala Cinema Database (Q125925381)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Film (Q8485793)

‎Sinhala Cinema film ID

Descriptionidentifier for films from the Sinhala Cinema Database website
RepresentsSinhala Cinema Database (Q125925381)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainfilm (Q11424)
Example 1Thendralum Puyalum (Q12984516) → 2321
Example 2Ridee Seenu (Q125543968) → 2451
Example 3It’s a Matter of Love (Q73536921) → 2339
Sourcehttps://www.films.lk
External linksUse in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Formatter URLhttps://www.films.lk/FilmDetails.php?id=$1
CountrySri Lanka (Q854)
Applicable "stated in"-valueSinhala Cinema Database (Q125925381)
Wikidata projectWikiProject Film (Q8485793)

Motivation

Sinhala Cinema Database is a Sri Lanka based film database website Sinhala, Tamil and few English films with native names of film almost are available and film persons, Additionally Awards and Theatres also in the website, It does not in proposal. Here are some that are not on the IMDb website, that's really helpful for the films. See: Example 2 --Sriveenkat|talk/{PING ME} 10:54, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

✓ Done @Sriveenkat, Sridhar G, Lee, ZI Jony: Notified participants of WikiProject Movies properties created. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎has semantic role

   Not done
Descriptionitem that describes a role in an event class
Data typeItem
Domainitem, occurrence (Q1190554)
Example 1military offensive (Q2001676)has semantic roleattacker (Q31924059)
Example 2military offensive (Q2001676)has semantic roledefender (Q111729140)
Example 3throwing (Q12898216)has semantic roleactor (Q23894381)
Example 4throwing (Q12898216)has semantic roletarget (Q1047579)
Example 5throwing (Q12898216)has semantic roleprojectile (Q49393)
Planned useadd to (possibly newly created) items describing occurrences/actions
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)


This proposal replaces the following property proposals:

event role, role in event, selectional preference, event argument and argument type

Motivation

All eventualities, including events, states, actions and processes, have core semantic roles, as illustrated by widely used resources such as FrameNet, VerbNet and PropBank. “Eating" has an "eater" and something "eaten"; "throwing" has the "thrower", the "target" and the "projectile". These roles are not optional. Every act of "eating" has an "eater" and something "eaten" independently of how it is expressed and in what language. While Wikidata has over 300 existing properties for roles in event instances (e.g., participant (P710), victim (P8032), there are very few that are used with event/process classes. The two most common are practiced by (P3095) and uses (P2283). The vast majority of event/process classes have no statements describing semantic roles. Our proposed “has semantic role” property is designed to fill this gap. Existing properties like practiced by (P3095), which is used with items such as eater (Q20984678), should become a subproperty of (P1647) of “has semantic role”. The Wikidata item of this property (P1629) will be semantic role (Q117747915) which currently does not have a corresponding property. We do not want to duplicate information that is already present, but rather integrate within a coherent, consistent overarching framework.

The object of “has semantic role” property will be an item that describes the role. Whenever possible, we will find an existing item such as eater (Q20984678), otherwise, we will create a new item. We also want to provide a broad characterization of the type of role it is, such as Actor or Undergoer, as explained in the Semantic Roles subsection below.

We will use PropBank (Q7250039), the largest repository of structured event, process and action descriptions (over 11,000 role sets) to identify the existing or missing event/process items and add their semantic role statements.

For instance, Item work (Q268378) can map to the PropBank work.01 roleset. The item has a statement work (Q268378)has part(s) (P527)task (Q759676) which is similar to PropBank’s “job, project”, Theme (ARG1-PPT). PropBank also lists several other roles that are missing from the Wikidata item. Of these, the ‘worker’ or Actor role (ARG0-PAG) should certainly be added, and probably the employer (Affectee, ARGX-GOL). See the subsection on Semantic Roles for definitions of Actor and Undergoer. We could either use the generic “has semantic role” proposed property, or any of the properties we have identified below as potential subproperties of “has semantic role” (i.e., adding statements such as work (Q268378)practiced by (P3095)worker (Q327055) and work (Q268378)has characteristic (P1552)employer (Q3053337).


Integrating “has semantic role” with existing properties

Wikidata has several properties that already highlight critical semantic relations between eventualities and their participants. We can relate the existing properties such as practiced by (P3095) to "has semantic role" using statements such as practiced by (P3095)subproperty of (P1647)has semantic role. We envision “has semantic role” as the most general, and therefore the top of a simple hierarchy that would include, at a minimum, the following properties: practiced by (P3095), uses (P2283), has characteristic (P1552), has part(s) (P527), has cause (P828), has effect (P1542). (These properties can have other subproperty of (P1647) statements as well.)

We have done some manual inspection of the current usage of the above properties. practiced by (P3095) can typically be relied upon to describe the Actor of an eventuality, i.e., {{Statement|Q213449|P3095|Q20984678)” and marketing (Q39809)practiced by (P3095)marketer (Q1900657).

Item uses (P2283) also describes instruments associated with eventualities coloring (Q2022532)uses (P2283)colourant (Q911922), or grinding (Q26882416)uses (P2283)mill (Q44494) but can also be much more variable, for exa mple, sometimes describing an Undergoer relationship eating (Q213449)uses (P2283)food (Q2095) or even an Actor relationship transport (Q7590)uses (P2283)agent (Q24229398).

The remaining properties describe semantic roles variously; budget (Q41263)has characteristic (P1552)budget constraint (Q605095) and marketing (Q39809)has part(s) (P527)product (Q2424752) which both describe Undergoer relationships.

These properties can all describe semantic roles, but which roles they describe can sometimes be ambiguous. We propose using an existing WD qualifier object has role (P3831) to make such roles unambiguous, using PropBank as our guide, e.g., budget (Q41263)has characteristic (P1552)budget constraint (Q605095)object has role (P3831)undergoer (Q111335542).


Semantic Roles

When no value exists for a given qualifier (e.g., worker for the actor of a working event), a set of semantic roles (e.g., actor (Q23894381), undergoer (Q111335542) will be used. Below is a table listing these semantic roles, adopted from the Uniform Meaning Representation project and used by PropBank, which have been carefully reviewed to ensure that they accommodate cross-linguistic typological variation (Bonial et al. 2011 A Hierarchical Unification of LIRICS and VerbNet Semantic Roles (Q118174236), Van Gysel et al, 2021 Designing a Uniform Meaning Representation for Natural Language Processing (Q115519832)). For the most part we will be relying on existing Wikidata Thematic Relation definitions to realize our PropBank semantic roles, as illustrated in this table. It shows how existing items will be used and ensures forwards and backwards compatibility with no disruption to Wikidata structures that may already be in use. This systematic approach also ensures that future items added to WD will be able to utilize this system to benefit from the enriched event representation.

Semantic Roles
Semantic Role Wikidata item Semantic Role Wikidata item Semantic Role Wikidata item
Actor actor (Q23894381) instrument instrument (Q6535309) Cause cause (Q2574811)
Causer agent (Q392648) Start origin (Q3885844) Temporal duration (Q2199864)
time (Q12322185)
Frequency (Q125995799)
Force force (Q126009669) Goal goal (Q109405570) Extent extent (Q125953445)
Undergoer undergoer (Q111335542)
patient (Q170212)		 Companion companion (Q106645134) Manner means (Q12774177)
Theme theme (Q118826633) Material/Source material (Q214609)
source (Q31464082)		 Reason cause (Q2574811)
Recipient recipient (Q20820253)
addressee (Q19720921)		 Place location (Q109377685) Purpose cause (Q2574811)
Experiencer experiencer (Q1242505) Affectee affectee (Q125995757) Attribute attribute (Q109674924)
Stimulus stimulus (Q109566760) Direction direction (Q2151613) Result result (Q2995644)

Anatole Gershman (talk) 17:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

  •  Comment @ChristianKl, Peter F. Patel-Schneider, Arademaker, Swpb, ArthurPSmith: from the previous proposals. Mahir256 (talk) 17:29, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To get the easiest out of the way first, what does the German town of Mittenwalde (Q574811) have to do with "Purpose"?
    The description speaks of "event class" but neither throwing (Q12898216) nor military offensive (Q2001676) are events in our ontology. Given that I made that point a few times already, why are you still talking about event classes? Event class is a term foreign for Wikidata and also not everyday language where you can expect that everyone will understand it the same way.
    It's unclear to me what the word semantic does here. Items are not words or their labels. Labels are semantic objects and point to concepts (items). If you actually want to speak about semantic entities, we have lexemes. throw (L28480) is a semantic entity. I would see less of an issue if this proposal would switch to focus on lexemes instead of focusing on items.
    throwing (Q12898216)has semantic roleactor (Q23894381) seems to be a good example of why the proposal is problematic. It somehow tries to store information about who does the throwing but it doesn't let us know that pitcher (Q1048902) is someone who throws. So in total I  Oppose this proposal as well. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not so worried about "event" as the current proposal includes actions. Just replace that wording with something better, perhaps occurence. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 15:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment Also see this list of actions that don't have specific parent classes: User:Wd-Ryan/Basic_actions. A lot of work to be done to model actions on Wikidata. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 03:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment The proposal needs complete examples to see how it would work, including not just the information associated with event classes but also information associated with event instances. Without such examples it is hard to determine just what the proposal involves.
For example, the proposal appears to indicate that the information added to the military offensive (Q2001676) action class contains two values for "has semantic role", namely attacker (Q31924059) and defender (Q111729140). But how does this impact information on instances of military offensive (Q2001676), such as Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222), which has two values for participant (P710)? The proposal seems to indicate that this is done (for existing properties) by making them subproperties of "has semantic role". The proposal then appears to go on and say that there should be two values for participant (P710) on military offensive (Q2001676).
But this is bad modelling. Properties like participant (P710) are for individual actions like Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222) not classes like military offensive (Q2001676). The relationship between participant (P710) and "has semantic role" is not subproperty. So the method of integrating existing properties with "has semantic role" is flawed and something different needs to be done, perhaps making the values of "has semantic role" be properties.
The proposal is also silent on how it should work in a clean state. Consider again Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222). What should be added to it and to military offensive (Q2001676) and possibly to other items to convey the information that the attacker in this action is Soviet Union (Q15180) and the defender is Nazi Germany (Q7318) if there were no relevant existing properties in Wikidata? How this is to be done needs to be shown for the proposal to be acceptable.
So  Oppose unless these points are addressed. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 15:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
military offensive (Q2001676) properties for this type (P1963) participant (P710) is the existing syntax to say that Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222) should have participant (P710) statements. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:58, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. A better version of "has semantic role" would make it a subproperty of properties for this type (P1963) and change the values from classes to properties. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would it then differ from properties for this type (P1963)? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would specialize properties for this type (P1963). properties for this type (P1963) is for any property that should normally have a value for instances of a class. "has semantic role" would be for properties that are semantic roles and that have to have a value for instances of an event/action/... (but the value or values might not be present in Wikidata). But maybe this is too fine a distinction and properties for this type (P1963) is what should be used to signal semantic roles. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 13:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an important point that we discussed in our previous proposal but should have addressed here. The object of the proposed property is an item that describes the role. It is not a role filler itself. In the example of military offensive (Q2001676), the item attacker (Q31924059) describes the attacker role. The actual attacker in an instance of a military offensive does not have to descend from attacker (Q31924059). We could add statements to attacker (Q31924059) that specify selectional preferences for the role fillers (e.g., that they should descend from military (Q8473)). Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222) is an instance of military offensive (Q2001676) and it has two participant (P710) statements with objects: Soviet Union (Q15180) and Nazi Germany (Q7318) without specifying which participant was the attacker and which was the defender. We propose to add the "object has role (P3831)" qualifier to these statements: "attacker (Q31924059)participant (P710)Soviet Union (Q15180)object has role (P3831)attacker (Q31924059)" and "attacker (Q31924059)participant (P710)Nazi Germany (Q7318)object has role (P3831)defender (Q111729140)". As you correctly stated, participant (P710) is for instances while "has semantic role" is for classes. We do not propose to subordinate participant (P710) to "has semantic role". I hope this clarification helps. Anatole Gershman (talk) 22:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comment appears to contradict `We can relate the existing properties such as practiced by (P3095) to "has semantic role" using statements such as practiced by (P3095) subproperty of (P1647) has semantic role' so I am now confused. Fully worked-out examples would help (provided that they match the proposal wording) and object has role (P3831) is not in the proposal so at the very least this important facet needs to be included in the proposal itself. These examples should say what is and what is not allowed. For example, can any statement on Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222) be annotated with object has role (P3831) no matter the type of the value? Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In our analysis, "practiced by (P3095)" is one of the very few properties that are used with event/action classes. So, indeed, it would become a subproperty of (P1647) "has semantic role" in our proposal. Another example is "uses (P2283)". There are 300+ properties (including participant (P710)) that are used exclusively with event/action instances and whose objects are the actual role fillers. We do not propose to subordinate them to "has semantic role", but we suggest using the "object has role (P3831)" qualifier to indicate the role their objects are playing. You are right that we should include the whole example and the use of the "object has role (P3831)" qualifier in the main body of the proposal. We will do that. On the "what's allowed and what is not" question, we can only offer guidelines. Thank you. Anatole Gershman (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, there are only a few properties that you will make suproperties of "has semantic role". Do you have an exhaustive list? One issue is that you say that one of these properties is has characteristic (P1552) but this property seems to be much more general than "has semantic role", not least in that it appears to be relevant for any class, not just events/actions/.... How can you resolve this inconsistency? uses (P2283) appears to have the same problem.
You are proposing quite a large addition to how events/actions/... are to be modelled in Wikidata so I think that there needs to be more than guidelines, but perhaps not inviolable rules. For example, Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222) has values for participant (P710), which are suitable for object has role (P3831) qualifiers. It also has values for country (P17), start time (P580), end time (P582), and part of (P361). Which, if any, of these are suitable for object has role (P3831) qualifiers? Further, it seems that start time (P580) and end time (P582) are actually semantic roles for Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222). How are these two properties, and other similar properties, going to relate to your proposal? A fully worked-out example would show how all this works. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 02:52, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you again for insightful comments. We do not have an exhaustive list of current properties that are used with events/actions to indicate semantic roles. This is an ongoing process as we map the 11,000+ PropBank concepts to Wikidata. For example, as we mapped 100 most frequent English verbs to the underlying concepts in PropBank and Wikidata, we found 6 properties used to indicate the "core" semantic roles as defined in PropBank. These are: "practiced by (P3095)", "uses (P2283)", "has effect (P1542)", "immediate cause of (P1536)", "participant (P710)", and "location (P276)". Of these, only the first was used extensively and the rest occasionally. One might argue about the appropriateness of some of these uses but we don't have any control of how people use the existing properties leading to inevitable inconsistencies. Because of this, we need to be judicious in making the existing properties sub-properties of "has semantic role". For example, "practiced by (P3095)" would be a good candidate but, as you noted, "has characteristic (P1552)" and "location (P276)" would be not. We will revise the paragraph dealing with the "has semantic role" sub-properties.
If we don't make "uses (P2283)" a sub-property of "has semantic role", how would one know that "food (Q2095)" in "eating (Q213449)uses (P2283)food (Q2095)" is a semantic role? The table in our proposal suggests that "food (Q2095)" should be a descendant of "semantic role (Q117747915)" via "theme (Q118826633)".
You are right that event/action classes and their instances can have many semantic roles. Currently, we are focusing only on the "core" roles as defined in PropBank. Any semantic role of an event/action instance can have a "object has role (P3831)" qualifier that would indicate the type of role the object is playing.
You are also right that we are proposing extensive additions to the event/action classes in Wikidata. This is because the current coverage of these classes in Wikidata is very sparse. We are proposing to use PropBank as a source to systematically add missing data. These additions can be done gradually without changing any of the existing statements. Anatole Gershman (talk) 14:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say that practiced by (P3095) is a good candidate to be a subproperty of "has semantic role". But practiced by (P3095) has given examples like volcanology (Q102904) practiced by (P3095) volcanologist (Q7940086). volcanology (Q102904) is not part of the domain of "has semantic role" so it is not a candidate to be a subproperty of "has semantic role". This indicates that your analysis of Wikidata is incorrect and needs to be redone. Similarly, if you make uses (P2283) a subproperty of "has semantic role" then all statements using uses (P2283) will also be statements about "has semantic role", so 1983 Belgian Grand Prix (Q20920) "has semantic role" Spa-Francorchamps modern circuit with original Bus Stop Chicane (Q66436621). This does not seem to be correct.
I think that there needs to be much more description of the larger proposal of integrating PropBank and Wikidata and how this property fits into that proposal. The larger proposal should include information on what existing Wikidata properties will be involved and how they will fit into the integration. The information should include what happens with properties that are generalizations of semantic roles, like participant (P710), and what happens with Wikidata properties that appear to already be specific semantic parts of actions, like location (P276) and start time (P580).
You also say that 'Any semantic role of an event/action instance can have a "object has role (P3831)" qualifier that would indicate the type of role the object is playing.' But what makes something a semantic role of an event/action? Guidance is needed on this point. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  •  CommentThis proposal appears to define what types/classes of instances should be associated to a particular event class. E.g., military offensive has an agent (Q24229398) acting as the attacker and another as the defender. However, this can also be specified using SHACL or ShEx (especially as an EntitySchema).
Being defined at the class level, the current proposal says nothing about how to specify the actual agent that is the attacker or defender in a particular offensive. I.e., how does this aid in understanding a particular event instance and its related entities? This seems the real purpose of semantic roles. "Joe threw the ball to John." => Throw is the event; Joe is the actor/agent; John is the recipient; the ball is the 'theme' (what is thrown).
In addition, it is incorrect to say ... "The Wikidata item of this property (P1629) will be semantic role (Q117747915) which currently does not have a corresponding property." It does have a property ... As a subclass of role, semantic role is valid as the value of the subject has role (P2868) property.
Lastly, there are standard semantic roles (agent, experiencer, causer, ...) as noted in the table above and in various online sources (e.g., https://glossary.sil.org/term/semantic-role or https://schemantra.com/blog/2023/07/28/semantic-roles/). It may be better to explicitly capture these (has agent, has experiencer, ...) as properties for an event. This makes it easy to define the individuals in specific roles in a specific event instance. And, it reduces the need to explicitly create unique roles to distinguish attacker vs thrower in military offensive vs throwing events. The attacker or the thrower are the active actor/agent in the events.
Without clarifying the proposal to address these issues, I  Oppose it. Andrea Westerinen
@AWesterinen: subject has role (P2868) does not have a type constraint for "role". The purpose for which that property was created was to be used as a qualifier and in that main purpose A type constraint for role is not useful. In the current usage, it likely would have never made it through the property proposal process and the current usage of the property is a good illustration of the mess that this produces. Hopefully, we will get the property back to it's intented purpose sooner or later. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
subject has role (P2868) has not been created to be used as a qualifier. Please have a look at the property proposal: Wikidata:Property_proposal/has_role. The discussion occured later, after the creation of object has role (P3831). You may argue that it would be better to use it only as a qualifier, but to say that making it a qualifier-only-property restores its original purpose is wrong. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, but this will be closed as  Not done. There're too many issues and it appears in total as unusable. In addition, there is no recognizable consensus for the creation. --Wüstenspringmaus talk 11:30, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It would be very useful to have a facility like this so that Wikidata information about events and actions can be connected to linguistic descriptions of events and actions. What is a good way of facilitating a discussion on an acceptable way of adding such a facility? Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To create such a property, we need to solve the problems mentioned above, the property must be useful in all cases of its "application area". If these points are not sufficiently represented (if they can even all be satisfied) and there is no consensus, I'm not allowed to create the property. Regards, --Wüstenspringmaus talk 11:45, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, an acceptable proposal has to be better, but is there a process for creating and discussing a proposal of this sort that doesn't have to fit into the boundaries of a property proposal and will also be visible to interested parties? Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 11:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WHO Country Database ID

   Not done
DescriptionWHO country database id
RepresentsWHO Country Database (Q126089346)
Data typeExternal identifier
Example 1Germany (Q183)→276
Example 2Vietnam (Q881)→704
Example 3Afghanistan (Q889)→004
Example 4Zimbabwe (Q954)→716
Sourcehttps://data.who.int/countries
Planned useadd external-id to items
Number of IDs in source200
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://data.who.int/countries/$1
Robot and gadget jobsno

Motivation

The World Health Organization (WHO) manages a lot of databases of global health data. A central datasource is the country database. --Looniverse (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Vladimir Alexiev Jonathan Groß Andy Mabbett Jneubert Sic19 Wikidelo ArthurPSmith PKM Ettorerizza Fuzheado Daniel Mietchen Iwan.Aucamp Epìdosis Sotho Tal Ker Bargioni Carlobia Pablo Busatto Matlin Msuicat Uomovariabile Silva Selva 1-Byte Alessandra.Moi CamelCaseNick Songceci moz AhavaCohen Kolja21 RShigapov Jason.nlw MasterRus21thCentury Newt713 Pierre Tribhou Ahatd JordanTimothyJames Silviafanti Back ache AfricanLibrarian M.roszkowski Rhagfyr 沈澄心 MrBenjo S.v.Mering Hiperterminal (talk) מקף Lovelano Ecravo

Notified participants of WikiProject Authority control Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 18:18, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic&oldid=2166162354"