Gegenpart / inverse part
@VIGNERON: Wie lautet der Gegenpart (contraste?) zu dieser Eigenschaft? Beispiel:
- Nouveau: Nevsky Prospekt (Q448977) published in (P1433): no label (Q289387)
Nevsky Prospekt (Q448977) part of (P361): no label (Q289387)
- Nouveau: ...
- Vieux: no label (Q289387) has part (P527): Nevsky Prospekt (Q448977)
- Same question, see Wikidata talk:WikiProject Books/2014#Need for inverse of Property:P1433. --Kolja21 (talk) 12:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
There is a question at Wikidata:Forum (German-equivalent to WD:PC) how to add an article which consists of multiple parts. An example item would be Daseinskampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung (Q19154093). At the moment the qualifier series ordinal (P1545) is used to indicate the parts, but it is not allowed according to the constraints on this page. Any ideas, or experience? —MisterSynergy (talk) 17:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The message on WD:PC contains more information so I'll copy/paste it here :
At Wikidata:Forum (German equivalent of WD:PC) a question came up how to use published in (P1433) in an item about a scientific article which was published in two parts (both parts appeared in the same journal, same volume, but subsequent issues). The item in question is Daseinskampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung (Q19154093). Please give input at Property talk:P1433#multi-part article to make this information permanently available for P1433 users. Thanks! —MisterSynergy (talk) 06:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
@MisterSynergy: This looks like some edition/work problem. There is also a whole/part problem : the article has been published in two parts. Here is a proposition Daseinskampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung (Q19154093) is the work item. There could also be an edition item first edition of Daseinskampf und gegenseitige. This item has two parts and/or is a series of article => then you get the "ordering" notion as a series is ordered. In the end, after analysis, this should be managed the same way any series of publications that makes a whole work are handled. Each of the subarticles are then published in the corresponding scientific journal issue. 08:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for your reply! However, I don’t fully understand it … Some questions:
- Did you suggest to add two additional (“part”) items for the two parts, which are connected to Daseinskampf und gegenseitige Hilfe in der Entwicklung (Q19154093) with part of (P361)/has part (P527) and which then take the published in (P1433) claims?
- I don’t see the edition problem. Scientific articles typically do not have editions (they are published once, but don’t receive “updates” via editions). I don’t think there well ever be a second edition of this article available.
- “this should be managed the same way any series of publications that makes a whole work are handled” — is there an example or description available? I was not able to find one.
- Regards! —MisterSynergy (talk) 08:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- first point: Yep something like that. A (maybe not required) refinement (see point 2) would be to create another item for the first and only edition here, which takes the has part claims. 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- second one: edition problem : this not always the case. First there is naturally a lot of versions of the paper, not all of them are published, but some are : preprints - to avoid copyright issue - workshop earlier version of the work, extended versions to publish in prestigious journals (see the question in https://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/12524/how-extended-must-my-extended-paper-be for example ) - corrections (see for example http://dx.doi.org/10.1112%2Fplms%2Fs2-43.6.544 ) ... so if you dig a little this is. But the necessity to always have an edition item is controversial and potentially not well accepted by WikiProject Books or people from Wikisource.
- third: management of series of work : I was not able to find one. that's entirely correct. We're progressing on a case by case basis on that front. An example however of a TV series however : The Wire (Q478360) .I'd be happy if someone launches a RfC or something to figure this out as series of work are pretty common and I'd definitely see the values if series of books, comics, TV series and so on have clear and consistent guidelines. However such processes are likely to fail in my experience but maybe it's my fault :). 10:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- (After edit conflict) Okay, this sounds good, and I see why edition items could be useful (although I have no opinion on the question whether we should have them for all scientific articles, or just for those which have more than one edition). For me as an occasional user in this field it would be useful if there was kind of a guideline in a suitable WikiProject how to deal with these problems – and how to query for properly related items. RfCs are probably not the best method to set that up, I’d rather recommend to work with interested and experienced users in the WikiProject. —MisterSynergy (talk) 10:20, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Something else : it appears quite correctly that the management of such a model can be heavy for people (including myself) sometimes, so that the either the enforcement of good practices once they are decided is to be helped with powerful tools or project like WikiProject Reasoning - Indeed if we decide that there is an article work for each article it could be useless to explicitly create them if not needed ... The same thing occurs if we decide that qualifiers of a reference established that there is an edition IRL that does not have an item in Wikidata ... I think technical solution to manage some implicit items would be a great help to make things easy for people as well as well-structured. 10:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why creating complexity ? Just create two items, one for each part. Then to link both items use followed by (P156). Snipre (talk) 13:08, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- This solution would simply reflect the technical fact that the article was split during initial publication. I don’t know the reason for this splitting, but I could imaging several ones (part two was not prepared early enough, whole article was too long end the editor refused to print in its entirety, whatever…). However, the two parts together shape one article, so from the content side it seems reasonable to have one item for the entire work, regardless of possible “sub-items” for the parts. —MisterSynergy (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)