Property talk:P2868

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


subject has role
role/generic identity of the item ("subject"), also in the context of a statement. For the role of the value of the statement ("object"), use P3831 ("object has role"). For acting roles, use P453 ("character role").
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): film (Q11424): this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2868#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Conflicts with “instance of (P31): Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410): this property must not be used with the listed properties and values. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2868#Conflicts with P31, search, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Value protagonist (Q215972) will be automatically replaced to value protagonist (Q215972) and moved to narrative role (P5800) property.
Testing: TODO list

Propose removing "has" from English label[edit]

The verb conjugation does not cover the full range of uses of the property. The property may be used, and is used, to indicate "[plural subjects] have role", or "[subject] had role". The label should cover all these cases, which "role" alone does. I was reverted on this change, but as yet there has been no valid reason given. --Swpb (talk) 15:54, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

The relationship ontology uses "has role" in "RO_0000087". There's value in having a name that's consistent with their name. Could you give specific examples where you currently see a problem? ChristianKl (talk) 20:02, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Newclare Primary School (Q28739587). Swpb (talk) 06:14, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Newclare Primary School (Q28739587) participant (P710) black people (Q817393)
That seems like an odd use of participant (P710), which I'd expect to see used on an event. Bovlb (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Given the domain that's agreed on for participant (P710) is events and schools aren't events, I don't think it should be expressed this way in the first place. ChristianKl (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
How would you express it instead? --Swpb (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
has parts of the class (P2670) with an item for "Black student" maybe. ChristianKl (talk) 11:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
  • You can add "have role" as an alias. Let's avoid getting the label too close to "character role".
    --- Jura 11:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Difference from P366?[edit]

@ChristianKl, Jura1: What's the difference from use (P366) "role"?

  • I see at Mona Lisa: Creator that P366 is used as a qualifier
  • But the use (P366) property examples show it as a main prop, exactly as P2868 is used.

Do we have an overlap? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

You might want to ping the proposer of this property. Personally, I'm mainly worried about the risk of a possible confusion with character role (P453).
--- Jura 08:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
My understanding is that "main use of the subject" (P366) is about planned usage whereas P2868 "role or purpose of item" also includes occasional uses.
Leonardo da Vinci is not "used" (P366) by anyone, he takes a specific responsibility/role. d1g (talk) 16:40, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
vemurafenib (Q423111) can be used as Q23987513, so property should be use (P366). d1g (talk) 16:45, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

used as qualifier constraint[edit]

Has there been any discussion to use this only as a qualifier? This doesn't seem to be the intention of the original proposal[1] and there are 77.422 violations, right now[2]. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:25, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Swpb, Derick Chan, do you think that this constraint is necessary? Why? There are roles that are significant for certain entities, so that they should be recorded in a main claim. If this should not be necessary, I will just restore the previous version. -Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
No strong opinion. I think this property should primarily be a qualifier; it was implemented with the constraint, even if that wasn't part of the proposal, and there are plenty of properties available for main statements, such as instance of (P31), position held (P39), occupation (P106), participant of (P1344), and field of work (P101). But if someone wants to use this as a primary property, I don't see anything hugely wrong with that. Swpb (talk) 16:12, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I see that my interpretation of [3] was wrong (I didn't notice before that this should be used as a qualifier only). (But I would still support the removal of the constraint - it is heavily used on taxa (Tillandsia rubra (Q3528494)) and also useful in other cases) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 17:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
(Edit: It is not of high importance, but the statement "it was implemented with the constraint" is false. The constraint was only added last week. The "history" of property constraints on the property talk's history is misleading, as it shows the status quo in addition to the past constraints.) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 08:00, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
  • I agree with Swpb on this. I don't hold a strong opinion that this must be a qualifier, though most current uses of this as a main verb (statement property) seems to be better-off modelled by use (P366), instance of (P31), or sometimes flipping the main property and qualifier around. Deryck Chan (talk) 16:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

This point is also discussed at Wikidata:Project_chat#"Subject_has_role"_as_statement (from August 27th 2019) - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 07:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Since 1. no one has an argument against this being used as a main property, and 2. there is no property that can be used e.g. for parts of chemical processes where no person uses the item but the item has a role nevertheless, and 3. because the creation with a constraint created tens of thousands of useless conflicts I will remove the constraint tomorrow at the latest. --SCIdude (talk) 14:34, 27 November 2019 (UTC)