Wikidata:Property proposal/Study for

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Study for[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Not done
DescriptionMISSING
Data typeItem
Domainwork (Q386724)
Allowed valueswork (Q386724)
ExampleSupper at Emmaus (Q29211543) - study for - Disciples at Emmaus (Q29211544)
Planned usepotentially Commons:Template:Study for
Motivation

Quite a few items are about artworks that are sketches or studies for another one.

Alternative solutions:

User:Zolo
Jane023 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vincent Steenberg
User:Kippelboy
User:Shonagon
Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GautierPoupeau (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multichill (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I want to synchronize the handling of maps with this initiative[reply]
Mushroom (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jheald (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spinster (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PKM (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Sic19 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wittylama (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Armineaghayan (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Musedata102 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Martingggg
Zeroth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:7samurais
User:mrtngrsbch
User:Buccalon
Infopetal (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Karinanw (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
Ahc84 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:BeatrixBelibaste
Valeriummaximum
Bitofdust (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mathieu Kappler
Zblace (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oursana (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ham II (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts

--Zolo (talk) 12:12, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

I think we should decide an approach and then model it comprehensively. We should copy the CONA relations to a new page "Visual arts/Relations", and argue/decide and document the representation for each of those relations.

Now my personal opinion: we shouldn't add 23+19+19=61 props for these relations (some of these exist, eg "different from"). I think we should group them into semantically coherent groups (eg "predecessor-successor", but I'm not claiming this is a good name for it) and use one relation per group, qualifying with an item to elaborate the detail. I think the qualifier should be on the relation, not on "instance of", i.e. something like this. The benefit is that we can extend the CONA nomenclature of relations as needed, eg see the last bullet (which is not in CONA):

  • Supper at Emmaus - successor - Disciples at Emmaus / role Study
  • Disciples at Emmaus - predecessor - Supper at Emmaus / role Study
  • Rodin's Gates of Hell in Paris - same genesis (same production) - Rodin's Gates of Hell in Zurich / role Cast
  • Cup - same context (used together) - saucer / role Conjuncted with
  • Roman marble statue - predecessor - Greek bronze original / role Copy
  • Greek bronze original - successor - Roman marble statue / role Copy
  • Andy Warhol's Colored Mona Lisa - predecessor - Leonardo's Mona Lisa / role Parody (I think it's this piece)

Hmmm, those roles don't sound entirely good when made symmetric... What do you think, maybe we should use the original detailed relation names --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir Alexiev: Interesting resourcse, but if we try to solve the whole issue, I feel like will end up in one of those endless and sometimes ultimately fruitless discussions. Still, a few thoughts:
About symmetric properties
  • We should probably avoid that 1 property in 1 way correspond to two properties in the other way. Like use "map of" and "study for" in one direction. And use "based on" as a symmetric for both.
  • I am not convinced we really need to have the create all symmetric properties. I think we need "study for", but not sure for its symmetric "study is". More generally the properties that tend to be N:1 seem more usable than 1:N (at least it makes items easier to read).
Subproperties vs qualfiers:
  • Using subproperties documented with subproperty of (P1647) is less annoying to type, and also more human-readable than more general "predecessor" / "successor" + qualifiers~. I don't think we should shy away from creating new properties when needed. Actually there are not so many of what CC0 calls "works that are related as steps in the creation proces". And all those in CCO are also in the CONA.
LabelSymmetricPropertySymmetric propertyCONACCONote
preparatory forbased on--YYbased on (P144) has a wide scope, not sure it includes this "based on"
study forstudy isYY
prototype forprototype isYY
cartoon forcartoon isY
model formodel isYY
plan forplan isYY
original printcounterproof fromYY
printing plate for printed from plateYY
negative forprinted from negativeY
I would be fine with creatign a property for each --Zolo (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zolo: "avoid that 1 property in 1 way correspond to two properties in the other way": please elaborate, I don't understand. "no symmetric": ok, agreed, but can you always tell 1:N or N:1? "create CCO props but not CONA props": not sure this is the good decision, but ok we can start with this. "based on": yes, that is a bad name in CONA. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir Alexiev:
"avoid that 1 property in 1 way correspond to two properties in the other way" I mean if we want a symmetric property to "study for", it should be "study in". It should not be, say, a property that is symmetric to both "study for" and "prototype for". It imply that we should rescope based on (P144).
"no symmetric": we can't always tell 1:N or N:1, that why I wrote "tend". Generally speaking, the preparatory works are the N and the final work the 1. Said differently, I think we need properties linking from a preparatory work to its final work, but not so much the symmetric linking from the final work to the preparatory work.
"create CCO props but not CONA props": I don't think I suggested that. That said, I feel we can safely create properties supported by both systems.--Zolo (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zolo: Sorry, that's how I interpreted the limited table above. CONA has plenty more --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Vladimir Alexiev: CONA has many more "associative relatonships", but I think the table shows all those linking a preparatory work to a finished work. --Zolo (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl: The prior art is CONA and CCO, see links above --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose - the property does not have any description currently. The other properties mentioned should have their own proposal. − Pintoch (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marking as  Not done as this proposal looks abandoned. Please create one proposal for each property mentioned if you want to go forward with the more elaborate schema, or reopen this proposal if you think one property is enough. In the latter case, please provide a description in English at least. − Pintoch (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Study_for&oldid=634014073"