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

General

‎relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator

Done: relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator (P12933) (Talk and documentation)

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	climate change adaptation (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

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

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]
@Ainali:, could you please look into comments above. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ainali:, could you please look into comments above by @Prototyperspective, ChristianKl:. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I think a way to mitigate blatant adding of only loosely connected items would be to have a property constraint reminding that this property needs a source. That way, at least someone else has had the judgement to make the connection, rather than it being "original research" by the Wikidata user. Ainali (talk) 09:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl, any changes in your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 21:05, 1 August 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]
Support Some entities already relate themselves to specific SDG goals themselves on the official website. Midleading (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Looks pretty good. I added the "weak" because I agree with some concerns, and I think a property constraint for sources would be good. If this constraint is added, then I have a Strong support position. TiagoLubiana (talk) 14:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ainali, Prototyperspective, ChristianKl, AmandaSLawrence, Midleading, TiagoLubiana: @Daniel Mietchen, LevandeMänniska: Done as relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator (P12933) Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 22:01, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agent of action

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
Example 4	crime (Q83267)agent of actioncriminal (Q2159907)
Example 5	competition (Q841654)agent of actioncontestant (Q5165152)
Example 6	telephone call (Q2296401)agent of actioncaller (Q113293705)
See also	https://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

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]
@Lectrician1:, could you please clarify the comments above by @Mahir256:. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 06:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256 @ZI Jony @Anatole Gershman using object has role (P3831) as a qualifier for practiced by (P3095) on action items seems silly. I still concur with my original reasoning that

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) 18:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the response? @Midleading, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, Mzaki, BlaueBlüte, Lectrician1, Wd-Ryan: pining for attention. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least the examples should be updated. It should be used to describe relation between classes, not instances. Midleading (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Midleading. Either way, I've been wanting a property like this forever, so I support. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectrician1:, could you please clarify the comments above. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think instances of actions are okay. Lectrician1 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Midleading and @Wd-Ryan, pinging for your attention and feedback. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind having instances, but the examples should have some classes too to show the range. That's what I'll be using it for most. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectrician1, could you please update the examples as suggested so that we would be able to move forward. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Lectrician1, could you please update the examples as suggested so that we would be able to move forward. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 02:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Midleading and @Wd-Ryan, would you please update the examples as you have suggested so that we would be able to move forward. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not only have I done that, but I also split this proposal into two properties. I did this because of uncontested comments by Midleading and BlaueBlüte, as well as the proposal for the inverse property, object of action and object class of action, which was accepted and created. I don't think this will be controversial, but I'd like to hear approval from Lectrician1. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 01:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
idk why we need two different properties for class and instance. just makes things more repetative. also, if you're going to completely change the proposal like this, everyone is going to need to revote. my vote would be with the original proposal where there was just one property Lectrician1 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I kind of agree, but what about that other proposal? Would it be okay to have a class version for that one, but not this one? I can merge them if the inconsistency isn't an issue. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ The rationale for splitting object of action and object class of action was expressed by User:BlaueBlüte on this earlier version of that proposal. Technically, they are right that without an instance–class distinction, some statements could be ambiguous to a non-human; however, that is also true of lots of existing properties, e.g. participant (P710), physically interacts with (P129), location (P276), and probably a hundred others. I would say there's no particularly good reason for such a property split on this proposal, but I support whatever gets it over the line, which the approach I took on the "object [class] of" proposal. Swpb (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I put them back into one property. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support! Thought I had already voted here, but apparently not. Anyway, this is very much needed. (Edit: I also Support the split proposal. Swpb (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)) Swpb (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For some reason, the inverse proposal included a separate property for class values. They should be consistent. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- These proposals are not inverses ("object of action" links an action to an object, whereas this proposal links an action to an agent), and the same ambiguity rationale doesn't necessarily apply here. (They might in some sense be complimentary properties; that relation isn't especially well defined.) Swpb (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Andrea Westerinen There are several issues with this proposal, which also apply to the object class of action (P12913) property. "Agent of action" correctly references an instance of a class as in the example above - e.g., MilitaryOffensiveXYZ "agent of action" Attacker123. However, "agent class of action" is defined as the class of things that does the action. In the case of a crime (Q83267) or a military offensive (Q2001676), this would be group of humans (Q16334295) or human (Q5). Instead, in the examples, I see a fine-grained semantic role specified ... e.g., crime (Q83267)agent class of actioncriminal (Q2159907)). criminal (Q2159907) is an instance of an occupation, not a human (Q5). Using the definition for "agent class of action" for the "crime" example, you could only identify criminal occupations, not humans. This is clearly not the intent. As another example, take German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918)agent of actionArmy Group B (Q157572), defined above. I would expect that Army Group B (Q157572) would be an instance of attacker (Q31924059), its semantic role. Instead, it is a subclass (far down the tree) of group of humans (Q16334295) - nowhere is it identified in the event-specific context of an "attacker (Q31924059)". In addition, for a military offensive, you also should distinguish the roles of the defender and the entity that is attacked. Perhaps the specific instances of defender and attacked could be identified as object of action (P12912), but this defeats the purpose of a single "object" of action since they carry different semantic roles. And, their object class of action (P12913) would still be group of humans (Q16334295) or human (Q5). Taking this approach would require the definition of a host of additional properties for all the various semantic roles, and still leaves the fine-grained semantic role unspecified. I much prefer the [has semantic role property proposal]. And, I would strongly advocate for combining these concepts together and providing a list of the possible instance level properties that could be used (e.g., "agent of action", object of action (P12912), uses (P2283) for the role of "instruments", etc.).
- @AWesterinen: I don't I see any problem with this property (singular, as Wd-Ryan has reverted the proposal) accepting any value that is an agent or class of agents, be it a human, a group of humans, an occupation, etc. Are you saying there is some possible ambiguity in the statements you give as examples? They mean, respectively, "crimes are done by criminals" and "the 12/16 attack was done by Army Group B"; I don't see room for any other interpretations. I would not expect Army Group B (Q157572) to be a subclass of attacker (Q31924059), since, as you note, that is an event-specific role, and in other events it may have been a defender (Q111729140) instead. The fact that it is an attacker in this case is inferable from the use of "agent of action" instead of "object of action": attacks, as a class, always have an attacker as agent, and a target/defender/victim or the like as object. We can make that rule explicit with attack (Q1174599)agent of actionattacker (Q31924059) and attack (Q1174599)object class of action (P12913)Q6518482, Q111729140, Q1851760, etc.. The first of those statements, taken with German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918)instance of (P31)attack (Q1174599), imply unambiguously that the agent of German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918) is, in that context, an attacker (Q31924059). We can also, if there is still some ambiguity, clarify statements with object has role (P3831) – for example, is the agent of an auction (Q177923) the lot owner, or the auction house? But even in that case, "agent of action" leaves less room for ambiguity than the properties it would be replacing (probably participant (P710), which could mean the buyer, or the horrendously ambiguous of (P642), which could refer to the item being sold [the object of action (P12912)]!). (Side note: although there are no examples in this proposal of the property being used as a qualifer, it will, like "object [class] of action" , be tremendously useful in offloading and ultimately deprecating of (P642), a project I'm deeply involved in.) I don't see any argument here for defining any other properties, least of all "has semantic role", whose flaws I think I've well documented on its proposal page. Swpb (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

exception to constraint (lexeme)

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

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

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]

voting date

Under discussion

Description	vote date, date on which people decided or cast their ballot
Represents	legal act (Q1864008)
Data type	Point in time
Template parameter	"date votation" in fr:modèle:Infobox Initiative suisse
Example 1	French constitutional referendum, 1958 (Q2319128)→28 septembre 1958
Example 2	Federal popular initiative "for the protection against gun violence" (Q663241)→13 février 2011
Example 3	1932 German presidential election (Q706684)→13 mars 1932 + 10 avril 1932
Example 4	Veil Act (Q3258255)→20 décembre 1974
Example 5	2024 United Kingdom general election (Q78851988)→4 juillet 2024
Example 6	2000 United States elections (Q7892455)→7 novembre 2000
Single-value constraint	yes but there can be exceptions (two-round system (Q615255))
Wikidata project	WikiProject Law (Q8486941) WikiProject Human Rights (Q115677469)

Motivation

To help distinguish votes/votations/referendums/laws between announcement date (P6949) effective date (P7588) and date of promulgation (P7589) and publication date (P577)Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 05:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Human rights Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Law Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:01, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there are going to be a lot of expections I don't think a single value constraint is a good idea. Many modern elections allow people to cast their ballets before polls open via mail-in voting. The current description would suggest that all dates where mail-in voting was acting would be a "date de vote". ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bouzinac:, could you please clarify the comments above by @ChristianKl:. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's difficult to model since you have plenty of ways to voting. There are countries where double voting is common (first round and second round), where you can cast ballot in different ways (voting proxy, mail, etc). There would be three way to solving this:
either set a "date of vote/last day of possible vote" and having a single-value-constraint. It would mean the last day where a ballot can be casted/counted is the one to record.

or set a "date of vote(s)" and having a single-value-suggestion. Letting people set the context with qualifyers.

or decide to rephrase the property as to the main date (the most common significative date : that is the date where most of ballots are to be decisive/counted) + single value constraint
I don't have any preference. Thoughts? Bouzinac ^{💬●✒️●💛} 19:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the response? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 03:18, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the property still lacks an English name, it's far from a state where it warrents anything like a final response.

The ideal way forward would be to look at prior art and see how other people define the concept to see whether someone else has already come up with a good definition. Maybe, some UN agency that cares about voting has a controlled vocabulary that has a term? Maybe someone else? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 11:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: proposal updated by @Swpb:. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 04:08, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl and @Swpb, would you like to give your opinion? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 15:30, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really have an opinion on the property, I just came here to fix the English label. Swpb (talk) 17:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes there is also a span of time to vote, like the EU elections. And the span usually also applies to early voting or mail-in voting. As an example, 2024 European Parliament election in Sweden (Q113933095) had mail-in voting starting at 25 April, early voting in Sweden 22 May–8 June (but voting from embassies abroad had dates varying by country), and "regular" vote on 9 June. I think we need to allow for this complexity, and also should have examples of these kind from the start so that the preferred way of modeling it is clear. Ainali (talk) 08:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW for bills and legal acts, the voting date is represented using the point in time (P585) qualifier on voted on by (P9681) statements. The objects of voted on by (P9681) statements are usually instances of legislative house (Q10553309), but when a law is subject to a referendum, it may also be an entire electoral body (Q5290079) (see e.g. Q124635941). --C960657 (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

tastes like

Under discussion

Description	taste that a food or drink has
Data type	String
Example 1	apple pie (Q1068034)schmeckt nachapple (Q89)
Example 2	Cuba libre (Q471753)schmeckt nachcola (Q134041)
Example 3	Nogger (Q1995439)schmeckt nachchocolate (Q195)
Wikidata project	Bunte Tüte (Q127598560)

Motivation

(Die Eigenschaft "schmeckt nach" ermöglicht eine präzise Beschreibung des Geschmacks von Lebensmitteln und Getränken auf Wikidata. Dies ist besonders nützlich für die Gastronomie, Lebensmittelwissenschaft und Konsumenten, die nach spezifischen Geschmäckern suchen. Darüber hinaus trägt die Eigenschaft zur Bereicherung der Datenbank bei und unterstützt die Verknüpfung von Produkten und deren Geschmacksprofilen auf einer strukturierten und zugänglichen Weise.) – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geja3001 (talk • contribs) at 14:38, July 18, 2024‎ (UTC).

Discussion

@Geja3001: this might be a good idea, but I don't think your examples make sense. Not all drinks taste like cola, for example! ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have revised the examples to better illustrate the proposal. What do you think? Histimtu (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When it comes to these examples at least I tend to oppose because I think this should be solved by specifying "Ingredients" and setting the qualifier "dominates taste" to these or via related/similar ways. --Prototyperspective (talk) 11:16, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Prototyperspective's solution could be accomplished without a new qualifier property, just a new Wikibase reason for preferred rank (Q71533077). Swpb (talk) 02:00, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I prefer Prototyperspective's solution too, but this might be a difficult property to define even in that way and could be very dependent on the editor - many but not all people believe that Q65523167 (what I would call coriander) tastes like Q34396 (soap), and there is evidence that it does taste like that to them, but not at all to others. And there are likely a range of views of the flavour of Q855853, for instance, all shaped by local culinary comparisons... Zeromonk (talk) 08:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In the Q1068034 example, what would be the difference/the value added with this existing statement ? https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1068034#P527

identifier of FranceTerme

Under discussion

Description	identifier of a term recommended by the Commission d'enrichissement de la langue française (French language enrichment commission)
Represents	FranceTerme (Q3080560)
Data type	External identifier
Example 1	commonality (Q110765520) → [1]
Example 2	no frills (Q1365464) → [2]
Example 3	fake news (Q28549308) → [3]
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://www.culture.fr/franceterme/terme/$1

Motivation

FR: FranceTerme regroupe les termes recommandés et publiés au Journal Officiel de la République Française. A l'heure actuelle, cette base de données compte 8060 termes qui pourraient être liés à Wikidata. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EN: FranceTerme includes recommended terms published in the Journal Officiel de la République Française. At present, this database contains 8060 terms that could be linked to Wikidata. YotaMoteuchi (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

‎has semantic role (2nd proposal)

Under discussion

Description	item that describes a role in an event/action class
Data type	Item
Domain	item, occurrence (Q1190554)
Example 1	military offensive (Q2001676)"has semantic role"attacker (Q31924059)object has role (P3831)agent (Q392648)
Example 2	military offensive (Q2001676)"has semantic role"defender (Q111729140)object has role (P3831)theme (Q118826633)
Example 3	throwing (Q12898216)"has semantic role"actor (Q23894381)object has role (P3831)agent (Q392648)
Example 4	throwing (Q12898216)"has semantic role"projectile (Q49393)object has role (P3831)theme (Q118826633)
Example 5	throwing (Q12898216)"has semantic role"target (Q1047579)object has role (P3831)destination (Q111335358)
Planned use	add to (possibly newly created) items describing occurrences/actions
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)

This proposal is a substantial revision of Wikidata:Property proposal/has semantic role.

Motivation

Consider concepts that describe classes of events, actions and processes, roughly the subclasses of "occurrence (Q1190554)". For the lack of a better inclusive term, we call them "event/action" classes. (They are sometimes called "eventualities" in linguistic literature.) All event/action classes have core semantic roles, as illustrated by widely used resources such as "FrameNet (Q1322093)", "VerbNet (Q7920918)" and "PropBank (Q7250039)". For example, “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/action instances (e.g., "participant (P710)", "victim(s) (P8032)"), there are very few that are used with event/action classes. The two most common are "practiced by (P3095)" and "uses (P2283)". The vast majority of event/action classes have no statements describing semantic roles. For example, until very recently, "military offensive (Q2001676)" didn't have any semantic roles at all. Clearly, every military offensive has an attacker and a defendant. We added these roles using two statements:

military offensive (Q2001676)has characteristic (P1552)attacker (Q31924059)object has role (P3831)agent (Q392648)

military offensive (Q2001676)has characteristic (P1552)defender (Q111729140)object has role (P3831)theme (Q118826633)

Here, "agent (Q392648)" and "theme (Q118826633)" are instances of "thematic relation (Q613930)". The property "has characteristic (P1552)" is extremely generic and has many uses. Our proposed “has semantic role” property would be a specific sub-property of "has characteristic (P1552)" for designating semantic roles.

Some of the existing event/action classes already have statements indicating semantic roles. For example, the creator in "creation (Q11398090)" is indicated by the "practiced by (P3095)" property. We would not change this, but, since this property has many uses, we added a qualifier:

creation (Q11398090)practiced by (P3095)creator (Q2500638)object has role (P3831)agent (Q392648)

The item "creation (Q11398090)" did not have a statement for the "object of creation" role. So, we added:

creation (Q11398090)has characteristic (P1552)artificial object (Q16686448)object has role (P3831)theme (Q118826633)

If we had the proposed "has semantic role" property, we would have used it instead of the generic "has characteristic (P1552)" property.

This proposal is a part of a wider project: "Wikidata:WikiProject_Events_and_Role_Frames". We encourage the interested parties to visit and join the project discussion. Anatole Gershman (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Comment @ChristianKl, Arademaker, Swpb, ArthurPSmith: This is a significant revision of previous proposals that you have commented on. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I find the proposal much improved and fully support it. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 23:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I am very happy with this proposal and also strongly support it. MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I definitely support the addition of the "has semantic role" property. HajicJanSr (talk) 17:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I fully support this property proposal. SkatjeMyers (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support I think that this property would substantially improve the representation of eventualities in Wikidata. Kitchengoose (talk) 01:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support This revised proposal addresses all issues and I fully support it. Andrea Westerinen
Oppose. This property would introduce a competing modeling approach to what has already been adopted. This overlaps with:
object of action (P12912) and object class of action (P12913), wherever the role is theme (Q118826633) or another type of undergoer (Q111335542);

source of transfer (P12693) and destination of transfer (P12694), when the role is source (Q31464082) or recipient (Q20820253) (including destination (Q111335358));

The proposed agent of action, when the role is agent (Q392648).

(Edit: and many others, see table below. Swpb (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC))[reply]

It would be best to continue the approach of properties like those, that represent semantic roles directly: there are only a few broad types of semantic role, and the properties (and proposal) I listed already cover the most important ones (with instrument (Q6535309) being probably the most important role that doesn't yet have a property or proposal). That approach has the added advantage of allowing the properties to be used as either main properties or qualifiers, due to not needing the object has role (P3831) qualifier:

military offensive (Q2001676)"agent of action"attacker (Q31924059)

military offensive (Q2001676)object class of action (P12913)defender (Q111729140)

Wirecard scandal (Q96655771)has effect (P1542)arrest (Q1403016)object of action (P12912)Markus Braun (Q56855998)

Swpb (talk) 17:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb It appears that the thrust of your argument is that there are already pairs of properties or property proposals for most broad thematic roles like agent, recipient/object, instrument, and goal. For example, object class of action (P12913) (created on 24 July 2024) is to be used to provide the selectional restriction (or perhaps selectional preference) class for the recipient/object of action/event classes, as is done for window cleaning (Q3124765) (but not for banishment (Q1716571)), and object of action (P12912) (created on the same date) is to be used to provide the actual recipient/object for action/event instances, as is done for Turukhansk exile of Joseph Stalin (Q4466445). Is there a place where all these properties and proposals can be found? Would proposals to create all the missing properties go through? Is there a property that uniquely connects the pairs? (I don't see one on either object class of action (P12913) or object of action (P12912).)

What about fine-grained semantic roles like defender (Q111729140)? How are they to be handled? They are different from selectional preferences. I think that your example military offensive (Q2001676)object class of action (P12913)defender (Q111729140) is more like a selectional preference than a statement about a fine-grained semantic role, as individuals that play the defender (Q111729140) role in an action/event instance are not likely to be instances of defender (Q111729140) but rather instances of something like agent (Q24229398).

I'm looking for general solution to fine-grained semantic roles, not a just few properties that cover part of the problem. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your description of how object of action (P12912) and object class of action (P12913) work is correct and extensible to the other properties I listed. To my knowledge, no one has put together a list of these properties before, but I have done so in the table below. Obviously, I can't guarantee that any proposal will go through, but it looks like agent of action is in a strong position to do so. By "a property that uniquely connects the pairs", do you mean the pairs of properties in my bullets? Because the relationship between object of action (P12912) and object class of action (P12913) is not the same as that between source of transfer (P12693) and destination of transfer (P12694). As to the fine-grainedness of semantic roles, I think object has role (P3831) would be sufficient where greater specificity is required – only with these properties, it would be narrowing down the sematic role indicated by the main property, unlike in the current proposal, where it is used to generalize from the selectional preference/requirement given by the value of the main statement to a broad semantic role. In fact, in that sense, the present proposal is misnamed: as you point out, defender (Q111729140), projectile (Q49393), etc. are selectional preferences/requirements, not semantic roles. But back to your concern about coverage: Anatole has listed 25 semantic roles in his table, which are covered on Wikidata as follows (this mapping may not be exact, but I think it's pretty darn close):

UMR semantic roles	Wikidata property
actor, causer	"agent of action" (currently proposed)
force, stimulus, cause, reason	has cause (P828)
undergoer, patient, theme, affectee	object of action (P12912) or object class of action (P12913)
recipient, goal	destination of transfer (P12694) or destination point (P1444) (note, not has goal (P3712), which describes a desired state, whereas the UMR role seems to describe a location)
experiencer	no specific existing or proposed property, but probably largely covered by object of action (P12912)/object class of action (P12913)
instrument	uses (P2283)
start	start point (P1427) or source of transfer (P12693)
companion	together with (P1706) (note that a companion is relative to an agent rather than an action directly, which is why this is a qualifier)
material/source	source of material (P2647), made from material (P186), or source of transfer (P12693) as appropriate (this is really more than one semantic role)
place	location (P276) and its sub-properties
temporal	any Wikidata property with datatype 'time' (Q18636219)
extent	various numerical-valued properties
manner	has characteristic (P1552)
purpose	has goal (P3712)
attribute	has characteristic (P1552) and various others; this "role" is pretty nonspecific
result	has effect (P1542)
direction	direction (P560), towards (P5051), terminus (P559), depending on subject class

Some of these properties also accept subjects that are not actions/occurrences, but that doesn't impede their use for filling in semantic slots for actions/occurrences. So you can see that the semantic roles given by UMR are already well covered, especially if "agent of action" is created, and in fact in many cases the existing properties are more fine-grained than UMR. Swpb (talk) 16:06, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb Wow! I had no idea these roles could be so well represented by existing properties. I can quibble a bit. Experiencer and Stimulus are actually quite distinct and deserve more attention, and I'm still dithering about Manner and Attribute being "has characteristic" but on the whole this is pretty comprehensive. I would still want them all collected together under "has semantic role" which provides a way to cluster these properties together as serving this purpose. In addition, as broad as this list is, and as applicable as it is, there are always verbs in every language that have participants that do not fit any of these categories. "has semantic role" also provides a general backoff category for the participants that just don't fit anything else. Why can't we have both, "has semantic role" and "has agent of action"? MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, the fact that this mapping surprises anyone suggests that the "Events and Role Frames" WikiProject has been working in too much isolation from the rest of the project, and should step back and reconsider the redundancy of its approach and its integration. The point is not that Wikidata already has a perfect property for every possible semantic role, but that the mapping of semantic roles to Wikidata properties is already extremely close, just through natural development that didn't originally have semantics in mind, and can continue to be brought closer. The table only lists the roles given by UMR, but I'm confident that for just about any other role you can think of, there is an appropriate property, and if not, one can be proposed. The usual way of grouping properties by function would be to create a Q-item like "Wikidata property that may be used to represent a semantic role", and making the applicable properties instances of it. The problem with having "has semantic role" and properties representing specific roles is that of overlap – on an item like military offensive (Q2001676), would you have both "agent of action"/object class of action (P12913) statements and "has semantic role" statements? I would think not, because the former accomplishes the task better. But then what items would you use "has semantic role" on? I think my table shows that in almost all cases, there is a better property to use. (To wit, the statement at the end of the Motivation section would be better expressed as creation (Q11398090)has effect (P1542)artificial object (Q16686448).) You could argue that "has semantic role" would just be a pseudo-parent property, not meant for use except as a place-holder when a better role-specific property doesn't yet exist, but it would not work that way in practice: generic properties (like of (P642) and the former "as") get used and abused. I see its creation as having a huge downside for very little upside, and I think the proposal should be withdrawn while the WikiProject contemplates the issue. Swpb (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb Of course the correct approach would be to always use the more specific property if available. However, you still haven't addressed my point about recourse to a general "has semantic role" property when there are no appropriate more specific "role" properties available. On the other point, how is "thing thrown" a selection preference? The "thing" could be anything concrete, including a building if Superman is around, or anything abstract, as in an "election" being thrown. I take your point about defining a Q item to collect all of these "role" properties together, so I'll withdraw the suggestion of using "has semantic role" for that purpose. It could just be one of such properties used primarily for backoff purposes, and for things like Experiencer and Stimulus until we come up with better property definitions. I really don't see what we are suggesting as competing with what you are doing, but rather complementing it. MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 17:26, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought I did address the idea of recourse to a general property when no appropriate property is available: first, there almost always is an appropriate property available, and second, from experience, when a "general" property exists, many editors will use it when they should be using a more specific property, instead of figuring out what that specific property is. That creates ongoing cleanup work for other editors. If "has semantic role" is created, I'd want to see the property description make VERY clear that it is not to be used where a more appropriate property exists, and direct editors to a table of such properties – but I think even with that, there will be a lot of lazy misapplication. If there is a gap in role-specific properties, like "experiencer", we should propose that property and then create statements with it, instead of creating temporary statements to be migrated later. As to the distinction between semantic roles and selection preferences when metaphor gets involved, I'll leave that to you linguists – it doesn't seem to bear directly on my main concern with the proposal. Swpb (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb I totally agree with wanting to discourage use of a general property when more specific properties are available. We went through your table above in our meeting this afternoon, and we're perfectly happy with almost all of your mappings. We also much prefer the use of properties for semantic roles - they embody the implied semantic relationships more naturally. That's why we've persisted for the last 8 months in our endeavor to get at least one such property approved. We were just so daunted by the thought of trying the same thing with more than one property that we didn't even consider it. But if you've already done most of the work, more power to you, and we will happily tag along. With respect to the table, after due deliberation on whether together with (P1706) would really work since it is primarily a qualifier, and looking at several examples, we decided it's fine. The same for has characteristic (P1552) for Manner and Attribute. After initial reservations, we all came around. However, Extent and Direction need some refinement. Extent needs to be broader since it isn't always numerical. Any type of change in degree can be included in Extent, and could be described as imprecisely as "an extreme increase in foreclosures." Direction is also primarily a trajectory which needs to be carefully distinguished from an end point (up above in Goal), but that just means removing terminus (P559). That still leaves Experiencer and Stimulus, which can be addressed on another day. There are still two arguments in favor of "has semantic role". 1) As a place to include either your table above or at least a link to it, as well as a link to an appropriately revised version of our "Wikidata:WikiProject_Events_and_Role_Frames" and clear directions about using specific roles if possible;

2) As a catchall when the traditional labels aren't good fits. In English there are predicating elements like "contain, exceed, yield," and "possess" whose arguments don't easily fit traditional roles. A "storage tank" that contains toxic chemicals isn't really an Agent or an Undergoer. Similarly for the "performance" in "her performance exceeds expectations". FrameNet labels the combatants in "The combatants yielded to the invaders" as Capitulators, again, not exactly Agents. Same for Fiona in "Fiona possessed a quirky sense of humor and flaming red hair that were hard to forget." This is one of the reasons FrameNet ended up with over 2000 distinct Frame Elements. Maybe those kinds of events will rarely, if ever, get modeled in WikiData, but, just in case, we could handle them without going to those lengths. MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 23:46, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Martha, I'm delighted your team is recognizing the power of existing properties to express semantic relationships, and I'm happy to work with you to clean up the mappings and identify gaps – I made the table in about 10 minutes, so I'm not surprised it isn't perfect. I assume the best place for those discussions will be on the WikiProject; you can ping me as needed. That said, I can't accept your two remaining arguments for the "has semantic role" property:

1) Properties are meant to be used; if the primary goal is to make it easier for editors to find a different property they should really be using, there are much more appropriate ways to do that: properties are categorized by subject, and there are navigation boxes for properties in different subject areas. There are a number of tools for searching for properties, such as the Prop explorer. There are about 650 subclasses that are used to organize and link related properties together. And there are numerous properties for linking two properties directly, including related property (P1659), subproperty of (P1647), complementary property (P8882), and inverse property (P1696); and properties for this type (P1963) to indicate properties that are appropriate for a given class. And editors can create and share their own means of organizing properties; I have one of my own. Creating a new property just to direct editors to a list of properties is not appropriate.

2) For the examples you give of statements that might require a catchall, there are, again, already properties that are appropriate, or could be appropriate with very little tweaking: without knowing the exact senses you have in mind, we have contains (P4330), greater than (Q47035128) ("exceeds"), product or material produced or service provided (P1056) and by-product (P2821) (various senses of "yield"), owner of (P1830) and has characteristic (P1552) for different senses of "possess". By simply adding properties for specific relations as the need arises, Wikidata has already developed quite a deep bench, and when a new need is demonstrated, it's not usually hard to get it met, either through a new property or rescoping an existing one. This model does not need, and in fact in some ways suffers from, the presence of catchall properties.

For those reasons, it's still my position that this proposal should be withdrawn. If everything I'm saying is wrong and there's a real need for this property, it won't be hard to get it approved later, but if it is found to be problematic after being created and used, it will be a bit of work to get the cat back in the bag. Swpb (talk) 15:13, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Peter F. Patel-Schneider, MarthaStonePalmer, HajicJanSr, SkatjeMyers, Kitchengoose, AWesterinen: Pinging to make you aware of my rationale for opposing, in case it affects your thoughts on the proposal. Swpb (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb Thanks for your thoughtful comments. We could indeed use object class of action (P12913) for most selectional preferences. Events doesn't always come across as actions, as so it might be a bit counter-intuitive at times. We can also keep object of action (P12912) where it is currently being used, just as we can keep "practiced by" for the "eater" of "eating." We can add it to our table of semantic roles in our Project description, "Wikidata:WikiProject_Events_and_Role_Frames". But if you look at that table you'll see that we have a lot of additional roles, most of which do not have properties already defined. One of our main goals is to come up with a consistent predictable way of defining event/action participants and an easily understood process for doing so. I don't see why we couldn't say that object of action (P12912) is a subproperty of our proposed "has semantic role", unifying what are currently quite diverse ways of specifying participants. It is hard to do that for "practiced by" since it has a lot of alternative uses, but maybe that isn't true of object of action (P12912)? MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since object of action (P12912) and object class of action (P12913) extend to events that are not actions per se, their labels or descriptions could be adjusted to reflect this, but I have found that in most cases where there is an undergoer, the event is an action. You say that most of the semantic roles in Anatole's table don't have properties, but I don't believe that's true – the existing properties just haven't been explicitly mapped to semantic roles before, but I have done so in the table in my reply to Peter above. Logically, object of action (P12912) and the other role-specific properties could be sub-properties of the one proposed here (which is misnamed because it really indicates a selectional preference/requirement rather than a semantic role), but I don't see when you'd ever want to use the latter property when the more specific former ones cover all the roles we have identified. Swpb (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb I commented on your table up above. I'm impressed with the coverage provided by existing properties, but I still see an hierarchy of semantic role properties as being valuable as explained above. I don't agree when you say "has semantic role" is really for selectional preferences, not roles, although I can see how "defender (Q111729140)" and "projectile (Q49393)" might have caused that confusion. Selectional preferences are really a separate issue. Our intention is to use the participant descriptions in the PropBank Frame Files that are intended to be very action specific and very intuitive. With that in mind we should have said "entity attacked" rather than "defender (Q111729140)". Since "defender (Q111729140)" was an existing Q item that was close to "entity attacked" we used it. But a selectional preference for either "entity attacked" or "defender (Q111729140)" would be different, something like "animate"/"organization". "projectile (Q49393)" is actually "thing thrown" in the PropBank frame and that's what we should have used instead. "projectile (Q49393)" is even more confusing. Our idea is to populate the participant information semi-automatically using both the PropBank specific descriptions as well as the more general UMR roles that you have listed in the table which are also associated with the PropBank function tags. MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 22:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly responded above, but I'll add here that I really don't think the problem is one of imprecise labels. For all intents and purposes, "projectile" and "thing thrown" are the same thing. On an earlier version of this proposal, I argued against creating a whole set of semantic-derived items that more or less mirror existing items; that's just a recipe for confusion. This is the reason we have aliases. Swpb (talk) 14:22, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Swpb I still strongly support this "has semantic role" proposal and indeed have issues with the [agent (class) of action proposal] (as noted on that page). I am very supportive of reusing specific properties for instance level declarations such as "agent of action", object of action (P12912), uses (P2283) for the role of instruments, etc. Please see my comments on the "agent of action" proposal. AWesterinen (talk) 05:26, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AWesterinen: You're welcome to maintain your support, but, with respect, I don't think you've engaged with any of my criticisms of this proposal, either here or on the agent of action proposal page. I've responded to your comments on that proposal there, but I don't see anything to respond to with respect to this proposal. Swpb (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support I think this makes sense. However it looks like examples 4 and 5 are mixed up? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:41, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@User:ArthurPSmith, I think you're right. I switched them. Thanks for catching that!MarthaStonePalmer talk]]) 20:56, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would think projectile (Q49393) is the instrument (Q6535309) of throwing (Q12898216) rather than a theme or destination. Swpb (talk) 17:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MarthaStonePalmer, so an (optional) instrument in "throwing" could be gloves? Or something like a slingshot (but in a throwing context)? Or simply the hand? All of these seem correct to me in one way or another Egezort (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Swpb. Instruments as thematic relations are typically intermediaries. The key in I unlocked the door with a skeleton key/ the screwdriver in I repaired the fan with a screwdriver, etc. In the prototypical case the Agent has contact with the Instrument and the Instrument has contact with the Patient or Theme. In the throwing event, the frisbee isn't being used by the agent to accomplish a particular purpose, it is the thing in motion as a direct result of the Agent's action, so it wouldn't typically be labeled as an Instrument. MarthaStonePalmer (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

‎exponent of base unit

Under discussion

Description	a qualifier of derived from base unit (P12571) used to describe the exponent of the unit
Data type	Quantity
Domain	item, derived unit (Q3550844)
Allowed units	dimensionless
Example 1	square metre (Q25343)derived from base unit (P12571)metre (Q11573)exponent of base unit 2
Example 2	metres per second squared (Q1051665)derived from base unit (P12571)metre (Q11573)exponent of base unit 1
Example 3	metres per second squared (Q1051665)derived from base unit (P12571)second (Q11574)exponent of base unit-2

Motivation

Right now, the best way to get the exponents in units is to parse the defining formula (P2534). This proposal aims to allow those values to be represented in a more structured format. --ScienceD90 (talk) 16:00, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Notified participants of WikiProject Mathematics ScienceD90 (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what's the canonical way to apply this? metre per square second could also be derived from the square second with exponent -1, and so on. Of course there's usually a preferred form, but would adding both be ok? Uniwah (talk) 16:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the units it qualifies should only be instances of base unit (Q810225) as there would be harder to tell what groups of derived units actually describe the unit. If someone wants the exponents of derived units, it should be possible to calculate that from the base units. -- ScienceD90 (talk) 01:23, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree completely with ScienceD90's comment above. The Anome (talk) 12:59, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support worth having. The Anome (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

See also

Contents

General

‎relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator

Motivation

Discussion

agent of action

Motivation

Discussion

exception to constraint (lexeme)

Motivation

Discussion

voting date

Motivation

Discussion

tastes like

Motivation

Discussion

identifier of FranceTerme

Motivation

Discussion

‎has semantic role (2nd proposal)

Motivation

Discussion

‎exponent of base unit

Motivation

Discussion

Navigation menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

See also

General

‎relates to sustainable development goal, target or indicator

Motivation

Discussion

agent of action

Motivation

Discussion

exception to constraint (lexeme)

Motivation

Discussion

voting date

Motivation

Discussion

tastes like

Motivation

Discussion

identifier of FranceTerme

Motivation

Discussion

‎has semantic role (2nd proposal)

Motivation

Discussion

‎exponent of base unit

Motivation

Discussion

Navigation menu

Search