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

General[edit]

‎relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator[edit]

Under discussion

Description	indicates a relation between the subject and the SDGs or one of the components
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Allowed values	Items 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 1	biodiversity (Q47041)→Sustainable Development Goal 15 (Q53581245)
Example 2	adaptation to global warming (Q260607)→Target 13.1 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57590883)
Example 3	Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (Q22907841)→Indicator 13.1.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595592)
Example 4	early neonatal mortality rate (Q97210258)→Indicator 3.2.2 of the Sustainable Development Goals (Q57595404)
Planned use	Add on phenomena, processes and policies.
Wikidata project	WikiProject Sustainable Development (Q56507949)

Motivation[edit]

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]

Notified participants of WikiProject Sustainable Development. Ainali (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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]

agent of action[edit]

Under discussion

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

Motivation[edit]

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[edit]

Support -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would this work? telephone call (Q2296401)agent of actioncaller (Q113293705). Also, an alias (or better label) could be "done by", more usable than practiced by (P3095) for non-professions. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I actually was considering using telephone call (Q2296401) as an example! However, I think the what that item is describing is the act of talking to someone over a telephone. Not the act of calling someone on a telephone. The agent of a telephone call (Q2296401) is just a normal human then.

Good catch with the similarities to practiced by (P3095)! I almost thought for a second that we could maybe just broaden the scope and rename practiced by (P3095) to "done by" but then I realized that the domain of practiced by (P3095) includes "fields" which are not really actions. I think it's important to distinguish that this is meant for actions by maintaining "action" in the label. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See my concerns with the related property proposal “object of action”. The examples given here make is appear as if those concerns mightn’t apply here, but already users are considering more general use of this proposed property like telephone call (Q2296401)‘agent of action’ (Pxxx)caller (Q113293705) (see above), which would be subject to those same concerns. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The examples can be converted to use participant (P710), and we have officially opened by (P542) too. Midleading (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't use those properties for classes, though. Not sure why the only examples are for instance values, class values look much more valuable here to me. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 03:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this property should be updated with class examples. But the problem with telephone call (Q2296401) is why the value is not Q5. We also have countless dailiy activities that every person can do. Perhaps the label should be "action performed by role" for telephone call (Q2296401). The significant overlap with practiced by (P3095) and participant (P710) is noted, and they have already used like this (crime (Q83267)→criminal (Q2159907), competition (Q841654)→contestant (Q5165152)) Midleading (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question Is this intended to contrast with/be complemented by a (potential future) property patient of action (Pyyy)? For example:
Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)‘agent of action’ (Pxxx)Johann Philipp Reis (Q77124)
Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)patient of action (Pyyy)Physikalischer Verein (Q2089433)
(The ‘agent’ property would indicate who performs the action, the ‘patient’ property, to whom it happens.)―BlaueBlüte (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't "patient of action" "object of action"? Lectrician1 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Intuitively I’d have (in the telephone example) associated the telephone with ‘object’, but yes, ‘patient’ and ‘object’ are probably hard to keep apart in any consistent way. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Wd-Ryan, Midleading: Regarding the telephone-call example, note the close similarity with the dog-walking example in the proposal for a property “frame element” that attempts to capture actions from a frame-semantics angle. One might want to look into whether the frame-semantics approach is better-suited to statements over classes and the the approach proposed here, to statements over instances. At any rate, I think one and the same property should not be used for both class statements and instance statements. (A property like this here one but for class statements should have the distinctive interpretation of something like “instances have agents of type”.) Insofar I support the current choice of examples for this property proposal. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support we need a generalized property to describe this kind of relationship, for example I suppose conjugation of gametes (Q11742512)→gamete (Q211050) and fertilization (Q14890574)→egg cell (Q1321695),sperm (Q17145). --Mzaki (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question How about broadening the use of perpetrator (P8031) instead, removing the (un)ethical assessment? One man's terrorist... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maculosae tegmine lyncis Not a bad idea... I like it. @Arbnos @Wd-Ryan @Mzaki @BlaueBlüte @Midleading what do you think? Lectrician1 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would strongly support this, I've been unable to add a group that performed an event without the implication that it was "immoral". It could be renamed to "done by". -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having given this only a moderate amount of thought I’d say no (to broadening perpetrator (P8031)), because the domain of perpetrator (P8031) includes (instances of) classes that are not subclasses of action (Q4026292) as proposed here, but for example of occurrence (Q1190554). And instances of occurrence (Q1190554) can have multiple agents, only some of which might be considered perpetrator (P8031) (say, versus ‘victim’), a distinction that users of perpetrator (P8031) probably rely on.
But perpetrator (P8031) could perhaps be made a subproperty of this new property ‘agent of action’ (Pxxx) (although similar reservations might apply). ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, an important property for the completeness of Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is a more general method of indicating the participants of actions (including agents) proposed at Wikidata:WikiProject Events and Role Frames. Mahir256 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

exception to constraint (lexeme)[edit]

On hold

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

Motivation[edit]

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).

Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

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

Discussion[edit]

Support - of course, since "element type" properties cannot be used on lexemes, this would be necessary --Hsarrazin (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support ―Eihel (talk) 16:28, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. I'm only leaving out the vote because that will make it easier for me to create the property. Infrastruktur (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:03, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support AdamSeattle (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --99of9 (talk) 05:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support --So9q (talk) 06:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please keep in mind that, until the necessary software changes (in WikibaseQualityConstraints and/or KrBot) have been made, this property will have no effect except to confuse users why it isn’t working. There should at the very least be an associated Phabricator task, and IMHO the property should only be created once the Wikidata team has committed to implementing the support in WBQC soon. I’d like to avoid a repeat of Wikidata:Property proposal/applies if regular expression matches. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): I figured that pretty much, thanks for the reminder and yes, indeed, we should absolutely Wait to hear from the dev team. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support Useful for some Lexemes. Solaris5296 (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

intervener[edit]

Under discussion

Description	name of a third-party group or person allowed to participate in a legal case
Represents	intervention (Q2292948)
Data type	Item
Domain	human (Q5), organization (Q43229)
Example 1	York University v Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Q108085698)→QThe Writers' Union of Canada (Q8038449)
Example 2	CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada (Q5009584)→QAccess Copyright (Q4672434)
Example 3	Eurobank Ergasias S.A. v. Bombardier inc. (Q125349256)→QCanadian Bankers Association (Q1032046)
Source	https://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 use	To 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 completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
Implied notability	Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316)
See also	plaintiff (P1620), defendant (P1591)

Motivation[edit]

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[edit]

model for and its inverse property modeled by[edit]

Under discussion

Description	what the subject is a conceptual or scientific model/theory for
Represents	model (Q1979154)
Data type	Item
Domain	item (instance of/subclass of conceptual model (Q2623243) or formula (Q976981) or model (Q1979154) or theory (Q17737)… )
Example 1	data model (Q1172480) → data (Q42848)
Example 2	database model (Q267136) → database (Q8513)
Example 3	abstract data type (Q827335) → data type (Q190087)
Example 4	Navier–Stokes equations (Q201321) → fluid dynamics (Q216320)
Example 5	Peano axioms (Q842755) → non-negative integer (Q28920052)
Example 6	hybrid system (Q2665508) → cyber-physical system (Q1120057)
See also	has 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[edit]

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) 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[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Physics

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

~~I reiterate my Support to the proposal. author TomT0m / talk page 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)~~[reply]

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) 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]

pacing[edit]

Under discussion

Description	video game mechanic based on the rhythm of the player's actions
Data type	Item
Example 1	Civilization: Call to Power (Q1027136)→turn-based (Q74023227)
Example 2	Madden NFL 24 (Q119238637)→real-time (Q74023731)
Example 3	Fallout 76 (Q54497595)→persistent world (Q736958)

Motivation[edit]

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. :)

Notified participants of WikiProject Video games

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

Discussion[edit]

Comment I don't think we should put 'rhythm' in the English label (maybe in the aliases, however) because rhythm game (Q2632782) has stronger associations with that word in the context of video games. timekeeping in games (Q4421045) seems to be the main topic but that doesn't lend itself to a property label... Here's a perhaps-relevant Listeria list: WD:WikiProject Video games/Statistics/game mechanic Arlo Barnes (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Comment Wouldn't it be better to use game mechanics (P4151) here? Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:41, 19 April 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]

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

Support with label/description that clearly differentiates it from similar properties. Arlo Barnes (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak oppose~~ This can often be inferred from the genre. If applicable, genre (P136)turn-based strategy video game (Q2176159) or genre (P136)real-time strategy (Q208189) should be used instead. Use game mechanics (P4151)persistent world (Q736958) for consistency with game mechanics (P4151)open world (Q867123). Dexxor (talk) 06:21, 19 April 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]

Weak support Seems reasonable to have a more specific term for the pacing of video games. –MrBenjo (talk) 07:38, 24 April 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]

‎is ontological root of[edit]

Under discussion

Description	forms the root element of the ontology
Data type	Item
Example 1	anatomical entity (Q27043950)→Uberon (Q7876491)
Example 2	entity (Q35120)→Basic Formal Ontology (Q4866972)
Example 3	chemical entity (Q43460564)→ChEBI (Q902623)
Wikidata project	WikiProject Ontology (Q60005226)

Motivation[edit]

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[edit]

Comment How many ontologies are there, which would have values for this property? Isn't this handled in some way by the exact match (P2888) property or something like that? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's relatively typical for Ontologies to have root elements, so probably hundreds or thousands. exact match (P2888) does not contain information about what are root elements. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 23:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That might be specified by a qualifier like chemical entity (Q43460564)exact match (P2888)http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/CHEBI_24431object has role (P3831)ontological root (Q104054982)? --Mormegil (talk) 06:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

located in the Islamic territorial entity[edit]

Under discussion

Description	the item is located on the territory of the following Islamic entity.
Represents	religious administrative entity (Q51041800)
Data type	Item
Domain	mosque (Q32815), zawiya (Q2001465), madrasa (Q132834)
Example 1	Djamaa El Djazaïr (Q23012984) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 2	Djamaa El Kebir (Q2386475) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 3	Djamaa al-Djedid (Q12192958) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 4	Sidi Ramdan Mosque (Q25453836) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 5	Ketchaoua Mosque (Q2471799) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Algiers Province (Q24258994)
Example 6	Zawiyet Sidi Boumerdassi (Q42332257) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 7	Zawiyet Sidi Ali Debbaghi (Q54863342) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 8	Zawiyet Sidi Saadi (Q54863339) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 9	Al-Fath Mosque (Q110236574) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 10	Uthman ibn Affan Mosque (Q110288564) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 11	Abderrahmane Ibn Khaldun Mosque (Q110245483) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
Example 12	Jabir ibn Hayyan Mosque (Q110245385) → Religious Affairs Directorate of Boumerdès Province (Q125856395)
See also	located in the ecclesiastical territorial entity (P5607), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), located in statistical territorial entity (P8138)

Motivation[edit]

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[edit]

Question Why not extend located in the ecclesiastical territorial entity (P5607) instead? --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 16:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Good point from Tinker Bell. An item like this would generally not have multiple different religions applying, so it should be clear that "ecclesiastical" for a Muslim facility would be the appropriate Islamic territory. And if something did have multiple values, the value should make clear what sort of religious hierarchy was involved anyway. So I can't see any problem with asserting that located in the ecclesiastical territorial entity (P5607) applies equally well to the Islamic territorial assignments. Some additional aliases would probably be needed. ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, if there is a concern that ecclesiastical refers to churches, not mosques, then that term should be relabelled "religious". I don't think we want properties for named religions. Vicarage (talk) 16:42, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Tinker Bell, ArthurPSmith, Vicarage: Thank you for your very informative comments. I think it would be better to rename and relabel the located in the ecclesiastical territorial entity (P5607) property so that it can encompass all religions. The example of the school district (P5353) property is here to show the usefulness of generic names that can be used in all countries and by all religions. Indeed, the term clergy (Q177826) is not specific to Christianity (Q5043), and we find in Islamic culture (Q1340372) quite comparable territorial and hierarchical terms such as sheikhdom (Q2706826), Tariqa (Q816321), hawza (Q1385497) to which structures such as a mosque (Q32815), a zawiya (Q2001465), a madrasa (Q132834), etc., are affiliated. Regards. --Soufiyouns (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that reusing located in the ecclesiastical territorial entity (P5607) would be better. Maybe, we can rename that to "located in the religious territorial entity"? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:32, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎Yandex.Music track ID[edit]

Under discussion

Description	Yandex.Music track ID
Data type	External identifier
Domain	audio track (Q7302866)
Example 1	The Knot (Q109795369) -> 3639885/track/30124805
Example 2	The bandits (Q113149889) -> 3639147/track/30168054
Example 3	The Time Will Come (Progress Studies Humans' Behavior) (Q106098098) -> 25575448/track/113143569

Motivation[edit]

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

Discussion[edit]

address of addressee[edit]

Under discussion

Description	address of the address e.g. on a postcard
Data type	Monolingual text
Example 1	A trip to Meissen (Q92739714)address of addresseeLeipziger Straße 57
Example 2	Ausstellungspalast (Q109104529)address of addresseeBerliner Straße 24
Example 3	Q109106149address of addresseeTilsiter Straße 41
Planned use	I plan to use the property for the WikiProject Postcards on Commons

Motivation[edit]

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[edit]

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]

‎has semantic role[edit]

Under discussion

Description	item that describes a role in an event class
Data type	Item
Domain	item, occurrence (Q1190554)
Example 1	military offensive (Q2001676)has semantic roleattacker (Q31924059)
Example 2	military offensive (Q2001676)has semantic roledefender (Q111729140)
Example 3	throwing (Q12898216)has semantic roleactor (Q23894381)
Example 4	throwing (Q12898216)has semantic roletarget (Q1047579)
Example 5	throwing (Q12898216)has semantic roleprojectile (Q49393)
Planned use	add to (possibly newly created) items describing occurrences/actions
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)

This proposal replaces the following property proposals:

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

Motivation[edit]

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[edit]

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]

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

WHO Country Database ID[edit]

Under discussion

Description	WHO country database id
Represents	WHO Country Database (Q126089346)
Data type	External identifier
Example 1	Germany (Q183)→`276`
Example 2	Vietnam (Q881)→`704`
Example 3	Afghanistan (Q889)→`004`
Example 4	Zimbabwe (Q954)→`716`
Source	https://data.who.int/countries
Planned use	add external-id to items
Number of IDs in source	200
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL	https://data.who.int/countries/$1
Robot and gadget jobs	no

Motivation[edit]

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]

This seems same as ISO 3166-1 numeric code (P299).--GZWDer (talk) 05:57, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, this could be covered by P299 "ISO 3166-1 numeric code" Back ache (talk) 10:44, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

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

Support Jason.nlw (talk) 08:42, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This should be covered by P299 "ISO 3166-1 numeric code" and the effort should go into that instead, so that is where I have added the URL match pattern Back ache (talk) 09:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dynasty[edit]

Under discussion

Description	A dynasty is a sequence of rulers from the same family, usually in the context of a monarchy or imperial system but sometimes also appearing in republics. A dynasty can be used to describe the time period in which a person lived, an event happened, a work was created, or a place existed.
Data type	Item
Example 1	Liang Chi-chao (Q379836)dynastyQing Dynasty (Q8733)
Example 2	Handan County (Q1196634)dynastyQin dynasty (Q7183)
Example 3	Bringing in the Wine (Q14918677)dynastyTang dynasty (Q9683)
Planned use	We will add dynasty property to the on-going Chinese poets and historical places projects.
Wikidata project	WikiProject Chinese Culture and Heritage (Q116889971)

Motivation[edit]

A dynasty is a sequence of rulers from the same family, usually in the context of a monarchy or imperial system, but sometimes also appearing in republics. These rulers typically inherit their position, and the dynasty continues through hereditary succession. Different countries throughout history have had dynasties ruling over them. Some famous examples include China, Egypt, Persia (Iran), and England. While there are some similar properties in Wikidata, such as time period (P2348) and country (P17), there are differences between the concept of a dynasty and these properties. Dynasties can rule over countries during specific time periods, but they are not synonymous with either time periods or countries. Allowing this property to be added to Wikidata would enhance the platform's ability to accurately represent historical and cultural data, facilitating comprehensive research and analysis across various domains. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gretaheng18 (talk • contribs) at 15:09, 24 May 2024‎ (UTC).[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Comment Wouldn't the same relationship be better specified by statements regarding the dates associated with the people, places, etc.? Presumably there are many places and some people for whom more than one dynasty would be a valid statement, how would you handle that? ArthurPSmith (talk) 00:50, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose As ArthurPSmith said, we can already know what was the ruling dynasty just comparing the dates. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 20:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎antonomasia[edit]

Under discussion

Description	epithet or phrase that takes the place of a proper name
Represents	antonomasia (Q607096)
Data type	Monolingual text
Domain	all
Example 1	Napoleon (Q517)→"the little corporal"
Example 2	New York City (Q60)→"The Big Apple"
Example 3	Macbeth (Q130283)→"The Scottish Play"

Motivation[edit]

There are many places that have such antonomasias, it would be nice to be able to add them to Wikidata.-5628785a (talk) 13:37, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I wonder if nickname (P1449) can be used for this.--5628785a (talk) 22:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎student count by gender[edit]

Under discussion

Description	I think there should be a way to document the number of students at a university by their gender, as data for student counts (at least if they come from GENESIS Online - german universities) contain that data divided in male and female students. I think it would make more sense to implement that as a qualifier for students count (P2196) than implementing it as a new property as that wouldn't make old data obsolete, but also it could interfere with tools that retrieve that data automated and are then confused by having multiple counts at the same time.
Data type	Item
Template parameter	the gender of students counted
Domain	educational organization (Q5341295)
Allowed values	The allowed values of sex or gender (P21) are probably suitable for this
Example 1	if implemented as it's own property Template:Student count by gender
Example 2	if implemented as qualifier for thestudents count (P2196) property Template:Student count
Example 3	for example in the year 1998, female according to GENESIS Online Template:Student count by gender
Planned use	Add statistical data from student counts from GENESIS-Online to universities Wikidata sites
Robot and gadget jobs	If it's implemented as a constraint for student count (Property:P2196) a bot might go through the datasets and add a value for the not categorized data to indicate that it is the count of all students regardless of genders.
See also	students count (P2196)

Motivation[edit]

I have noticed that there is no real possibility to enter that data into Wikidata without violating some constraints (which ofc you shouldn't do). So I am propossing this qualifier/property so one is able to officially enter that data into Wikidata, as I think it would be useful for statistical analysis purposes and stuff.

- Helen E. Matthews (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

‎TheaterEncyclopedie ID[edit]

Under discussion

Description	An item of the TheaterEncyclopedie
Represents	TheaterEncyclopedie (Q104771187)
Data type	URL
Allowed values	string
Example 1	Jan_Aarntzen→https://theaterencyclopedie.nl/wiki/Jan_Aarntzen
Example 2	Beatrix_Theater,_Utrecht→https://theaterencyclopedie.nl/wiki/Beatrix_Theater,_Utrecht
Example 3	Adriana_Grechi→https://theaterencyclopedie.nl/wiki/Adriana_Grechi
External links	Use 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].
Number of IDs in source	>100000
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
Implied notability	Wikidata property for an identifier that suggests notability (Q62589316)
Formatter URL	https://theaterencyclopedie.nl/wiki/$1

Motivation[edit]

A Dutch online encyclopedia of all Theater related people, works and places. It is published by the [[:nl:Theater Instituut Nederland]] and [[:en:Allard Pierson Museum]] (see bottom at [Over Theaterencyclopedie - TheaterEncyclopedie here]). Most of the people in this encyclopedia have a Wikipedia paga in Dutch. 92.70.152.178 13:42, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

See also[edit]

General[edit]

‎relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

agent of action[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

exception to constraint (lexeme)[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

intervener[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

model for and its inverse property modeled by[edit]

Motivation[edit]

discussion[edit]

pacing[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

‎is ontological root of[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

located in the Islamic territorial entity[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

‎Yandex.Music track ID[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

address of addressee[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

‎has semantic role[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

WHO Country Database ID[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Dynasty[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

‎antonomasia[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

‎student count by gender[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

‎TheaterEncyclopedie ID[edit]

Motivation[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Navigation menu

Search