Wikidata:Property proposal/value of property identifies

value of property identifies

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Withdrawn

Description	the parent property's value when used in a statement identifies this entity
Data type	Item
Domain	property
Example 1	YouTube video ID (P1651)value of property identifiesYouTube video (Q63412991)
Example 2	YouTube channel ID (P2397)value of property identifiesYouTube channel (Q17558136)
Example 3	Twitter (X) username (P2002)value of property identifiesX account (Q63976454)
See also	identifies (P10476)

Motivation

This property will replace the usage of Wikidata item of this property (P1629) to relate an external identifier property with the entity its value identifies. Wikidata item of this property (P1629) is currently conflated and used for multiple relationships including this one.

We could use identifies (P10476) to relate an entity with its identifier item and class of non-item property value (P10726) to relate the property with the identifier, however I don't believe identifiers are notable enough for items. Lectrician1 (talk) 23:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

@User:Wd-Ryan

Never got this ping, but if we really can't use identifies (P10476) on properties then  Support. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 04:33, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose allowed-entity-types constraint (Q52004125) does support multiple entity types. Besides I don't think we should ever create properties just because of WikibaseQualityConstraints (Q54812269) limitations. --Push-f (talk) 05:46, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Push-f

  this property is making a completely different relationship: the value of this property identifies this value, not this property identifies this value (a property cannot identify something?).

  We should not abuse properties for two different relationships.

  Also it doesn't support multiple entity types. See, there's now a constraint violation on Q133663#P10476 Lectrician1 (talk) 06:36, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oh wait no, now I remember, it does support multiple entity types, however we don't support multiple subject type constraint (Q21503250)! Lectrician1 (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is really weird ... allowed-entity-types constraint (Q52004125) is used many times with several entity types ... and I haven't previously noticed issues with it ... we should find out what's going on.

  Anyway I don't think having "identifies" on properties is necessary at all, because we can just model it as follows:

  • Twitter (X) username (P2002)Wikidata item of this property (P1629)X username (Q53311579) & X username (Q53311579)identifies (P10476)X account (Q63976454)

  There is no need to express the latter statement twice.

  --Push-f (talk) 06:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Push-f The purpose of this property is to replace Wikidata item of this property (P1629)... Wikidata item of this property (P1629) is currently used to for multiple types of relationships including this one. For example, see its use on Property:P2002#P1629. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes I don't think Wikidata item of this property (P1629) should be replaced. And there is really nothing conflated about the property linking multiple values ... the most correct one has the preferred rank ... that's ok. I don't see any reason why we should replace a universally applicable property such as Wikidata item of this property (P1629) with a specific property sometimes ... that just makes the data harder to consume. --Push-f (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Push-f How do we say the value of YouTube video ID (P1651) identifies a YouTube video (Q63412991) without using YouTube video ID (Q110851517) (this item is not notable and should be deleted)? What do we do for other identifiers that are not notable and can't have items? Lectrician1 (talk) 19:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

  You are forgetting the WD:N criteria #3: structural need. I think it's alright to create items to be linked via Wikidata item of this property (P1629) because of structural need.

  Related sidenote: I don't like number of records (P4876) because it is ambiguous ... it doesn't specify what these records are. I think it's better to use quantity (P1114) because it is more clearly defined (it applies to instances of the current item).

  So if we have a property Foobar ID (P01) I think that justifies the creation of data items Foobar ID (Q01) and Foobar (Q02) so that we can make the following statements:

  • Foobar ID (P01)Wikidata item of this property (P1629)Foobar ID (Q01) (with the preferred rank)
  • Foobar ID (Q01)identifies (P10476)Foobar (Q02)
  • Foobar (Q02)quantity (P1114) ...

  I think that this is much better than:

  • Foobar ID (P01)identifies (P10476)Foobar (Q02)
  • Foobar ID (P01)number of records (P4876) ...

  because it lets us clearly differentiate between statements that apply to the Wikidata property and statements that apply to the external identifier represented by the property.

  I hope that makes some sense :)

  --Push-f (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Push-f So we're going to allow the creation of any type of identifier as items... um ok. I'd probably start a discussion at Wikidata:Project chat to confirm this is okay with everyone else? I'd agree quantity (P1114) is better too.

  Also, we are linking properties with their identifier item using class of non-item property value (P10726), which is supposed to act as a replacement for Wikidata item of this property (P1629). Lectrician1 (talk) 11:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Oh I didn't know about class of non-item property value (P10726) ... very nice property! (Just linked it from Wikidata item of this property (P1629) via related property (P1659) and added a description to Wikidata:Data model). --Push-f (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose @Lectrician1: in cases like this, I don't think we should focus on working around the software but rather ask WMDE to make the software work for our purposes. @Lydia Pintscher (WMDE): is for example one person you can ask here. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:26, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @ChristianKl It's a completely different relationship which is another reason why I'm proposing this... Lectrician1 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  Can you explain where you see the difference? It would also be helpful to have a description to be more clear about what this property is doing. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

  @ChristianKl A property (a relationship, a software element that relates a subject to an object) does not identify an entity. An identifier, an entity/object, identifies an entity. Lectrician1 (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't see how YouTube video ID (P1651) identifies (P10476) YouTube video (Q63412991) is different from YouTube video ID (Q110851517) identifies (P10476) YouTube video (Q63412991) here. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:00, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  @ChristianKl YouTube video ID (P1651) is a property. A property cannot identify an entity. An identifier can. That's like saying that instance of (P31) identifies class (Q16889133). It makes no sense. A property and entity represent two completely different ontological things. Lectrician1 (talk) 16:51, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  A property is just a software element we make here in Wikidata to show there's a relationship between two things. It's not the actual thing that identifies a YouTube video. A YouTube video ID (Q110851517) is the actual thing that identifies a YouTube video. Not our Wikidata property. Lectrician1 (talk) 16:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

  I don't think this is a good reason to avoid reusing the property as this difference in meaning is obvious from the fact whether the property is used on an item or property. There's no reason to expect that anybody will get it wrong. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:47, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Strong oppose Property namespace isn't meant to describe anything about the concept of the property, they should only describe info about itself as a Wikidata property, other data must be on its associated item, and P10476 do its job right. I don't see why we should not create the corresponding items for these identifiers, they are notable enough since we have properties for them. --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 06:11, 14 December 2022 (UTC)