Property talk:P3259

Documentation

intangible cultural heritage status
status of an item that is designated as intangible heritage

Represents

Data type

Domain

craft (Q2207288), party (Q200538), tradition (Q82821), activity (Q1914636), rite (Q628455), musical work (Q2188189), song (Q7366), music tradition (Q60733114), festival (Q132241), theatrical genre (Q7777573), food (Q2095), musical instrument (Q34379), dialect (Q33384), custom (Q251777), trade (Q25475921), literary work (Q7725634), dance (Q11639), text linguistics (Q1206895), heritage (Q2434238), cultural heritage (Q210272), holiday (Q1445650) or subculture (Q264965)

Example

rotogravure (Q635658) → National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage in France (Q21011287)
Stille Nacht Heilige Nacht (Q172152) → UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage in Austria (Q1659958)

Tracking: usage

Category:Pages using Wikidata property P3259 (Q117990547)

How to use ?[edit]

@Fralambert, NavinoEvans: I'm looking to handle correctly the different UNESCO catalogs, besides the WH List, as intangible cultural heritage (Q59544) or Memory of the World (Q473858). I found this property to use instead of P1435. I red the reasons on property creation page and I agree that it's necessary a different property. However, as a P1435 is open to include the several protection the building has, P3259 is oriented to just one protection: the "intangible cultural heritage from UNESCO". So, the options of the element to assign as a value are really few. If you see the present used values: there are 228 National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage in France (Q21011287), 47 adding the equivalents intangible cultural heritage (Q59544), UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists (Q4435332) and Register of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in Slovenia (Q18398453), and less than 20 other singular and exotic values. In fact, without any other reasonable values and without qualifiers seems to be an indicator (on/off, intangible cultural heritage), a function redundant with the content of P31 in most of the cases. In addition, I found the ontology that someone set in Patum de Berga (Q1816129) and Human Towers (Castells) (Q943526) using catalog code (P528) to hold the Id and the URL of UNESCO description. I think, P528 probably is not the best way, however, it brings to me the idea of incorporate as a qualifier of P3259 this kind of information as we don't have an specific property (equivalent to World Heritage Site ID (P757)) to hold this characteristics. It's important to fix a clear position to avoid that anyone follows divergent solutions. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amadalvarez: I pretty sure that P3259 was created for the intagible heritage at large and not just UNESCO intangible cultural heritage. It's more that the ontology and the differrent subclasses are a mess. --Fralambert (talk) 00:34, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Fralambert:. I figure out that not all the potential "intangible cultural heritage" will have a register or a official ID or even a web description. However, where we should hold this information, when exists ? My opinion is as a qualifier, because is more flexible and avoid to create an specific property for an open list of events. Do you agree ?. Which property can we use for a generic ID ?. ~~The only one I know is P528.~~ Looking in detail, I think that P528 is a very open solution and allows to consider any type of catalog. Do you suggest any other ?. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 10:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amadalvarez, Fralambert: apologies for the delayed reply! For me the best approach is as follows:

Use intangible cultural heritage status (P3259) to state which 'heritage list' the item appears in. Exactly as they do for this item - gilding (Q1334300). I'm sure it's not limited to UNESCO heritage.
Never include any P31 = 'intangible heritage'.
I don't feel like 'catalog code' is a good fit for recording official ids/names, but I can see it makes sense in many cases. When there is no ID property on Wikidata then I always lean towards using described at URL (P973) if there is a web page available (this often contains the ID of the item as well). If no web page is available, and there is no ID property then I would leave it out completely.

As Amadalvarez says we need to aim for a consistent approach so everyone can start to follow the same method, so I'm personally happy to follow any logical approach the community decides on. NavinoEvans (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @NavinoEvans: for your answer. I agree with your statement on P3259, on "no P31 intangible..", on P973. In addition I would say:

The P973 must be as a qualifier, because the "URL description" may not be relate with the object but with the recognition done in P3259. See the exemple of description for gilding (Q1334300)).

When I pourpouse the P528 was in order to have the Id available directly in WD and because P528 has an open format and few constraints. Another option could be inventory number (P217). In any case, again, it should be as a qualifier . Does it fit, @NavinoEvans, Fralambert: ?. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 20:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Amadalvarez: Yes that makes sense to me too. I guess the use of Inventory Number or Catalog code will depend on the context, but I also agree it should be as a qualifier if it relates only to the heritage designation. NavinoEvans (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I found this diccussion! I asked about this topic here, but I'll follow this discussion for guidance. - PKM (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ For reference, Register of the Intangible Cultural Heritage in Slovenia (Q18398453) is an example of Intangible Cultural Heritage outside of UNESCO. - PKM (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, event if Canada don't sign the convention, at leat two provinces have intangible heritage, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador. -Fralambert (talk) 01:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Fralambert: Exactly. After understand the scope I presume to include events like Q2845201 or City Pubilla of the Sardana (Q11913968) because are recurrent events to protect local cultural topics and both have an control authority that manage them. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Questions[edit]

Is UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists (Q4435332) really a Wikimedia list article? It seems rather to be an article about a list.
Either way, do we need separate items for "UNESCO Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity" and "UNESCO List of Intangible Cultural Heritage in Need of Urgent Safeguarding" so we can say which list a heritage item belongs to?
If the intangible cultural heritage is a craft, does the intangible cultural heritage status go on the WD item for the craft only, or can it also go on the material produced? See Ala-kiyiz and Shyrdak, art of Kyrgyz traditional felt carpets (Q55428384) and shyrdak (Q1587270) for an example. (I would think craft only.)

Thanks! - PKM (talk) 03:55, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PKM: Regarding UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists (Q4435332), it depends on language. I think in eswiki is a list (hand maintenance) with an introduction. To be coherent with present times, it should by a Listeriabot getting info from WD.

I didn't know this classification (danger/no danger) for immaterial. Reading the description of shyrdak (Q1587270) I realize that if "cultural immaterial" are protected to avoid lose a tradicional aspect, "cultural immaterial in danger" means that needs an extra protection because we are already losing it. Maybe they copied the concept from the "cultural heritage". It is, they protect especial monuments (as Palmyra (Q5747)) but, when a war comes or when the local authority doesn't take care, UNESCO made an upgrade to "in danger". If this is true, we can handle the two levels for immaterial in the same way as we do in cultural heritage, it is, via significant event (P793) with the "list of immaterial in danger" as value + start time (P580) + end time (P582) as qualifiers. See Palmyra as a exemple.
In my opinion they don't want to protect the craft production but the knowlegde that allows its production. If the heritage is "immaterial", it can not be "the carpet". So, in my opinion the element to protect is Ala-kiyiz and Shyrdak, art of Kyrgyz traditional felt carpets (Q55428384). Salut ! Amadalvarez (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Total mess![edit]

WikiProject Cultural heritage has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

This property is a total mess! From its name "status", I expected the values to be a very limited list, eg "designated" and "not designated".

But they are a wide list with no clear organization or meaning:

Most are per-country items "Intangible heritage of X"
But some point to intangible cultural heritage (Q59544) or Intangible Cultural Heritage (Q84036549) or UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists (Q4435332)

Until recently intangible cultural heritage (Q59544) and Intangible Cultural Heritage (Q84036549) were conflated. Which is wrong, because countries have thousands of ICH traditions, only some of which are designated by UNESCO.

By the same token, would we need two items/lists for each country, "Designated intangible heritage of X" and "Intangible heritage of X"?

Making manual lists of things is contrary to Wikidata's basic ideas. We should indicate the country and UNESCO designated status as separate props:

country (P17)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/UNESCO_ICH_ID (soon to be created)

Unless someone provides good arguments, I'll propose the deletion of this property. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir Alexiev: in general, deletion is never a good solution to fix a mess, in particular here I don't see any good reason for deletion. This property is just a duplication of heritage designation (P1435) for intangible heritage (since the constraints are very different from tangible heritage), if you delete/keep this one, then to be coherent you should delete/keep heritage designation (P1435) since it's the same (kind of) property. But indeed there seem to be a mess that should be fixed (which should be quite easy since there is only a few uses) and yes, two (or more) items are needed for each country/area (again, just like for heritage designation (P1435) where there is around 2*5 items for France). For more point of view, I'm pinging the top-5 users of this property: @Fralambert, Jingkaimori, Ulumarifah, Nw520, Aiaiaiaiaia:. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 14:43, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that delete this property would resolve the mess, since this was created in the first place because most of the constraints are incompatible. This is the fist reason that the proprety was created in the first place! Best is to repair the mess. Fralambert (talk) 15:12, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fralambert: I've read your property proposal, and it does not explain what the property should hold. Certainly "status" is a misnomer, eg National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage in France (Q21011287) is not a "status".

The enwiki link of that item redirects to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intangible_cultural_heritage#By_country, which is a broken link. But there's a heading "By country wise" that's a table "Number of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements inscribed by UNESCO" by Country.

So it seems the intent of your property is to hold sublists of UNESCO-designated ICH?

What's the purpose of such sublists? It's better to split it into two characteristics: "country" and "has quality: UNESCO designated" rather than maintain a bunch of disconnected sublists manually
But even better is to know the details of the designation, which is the new Wikidata:Property proposal/UNESCO ICH ID

That wikipedia page points to more lists, are they incorporated in Wikidata and in what form?

Main article: UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists
See also: List of Intangible Cultural Heritage elements in Northern Europe

Your argument that intangible cultural heritage status (P3259) was created to fix a mess with heritage designation (P1435) does not automatically make your property legit. It seems to me that the fix is worse than the mess. Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

heritage designation (P1435) have also non designated thing, like inventoried in the Quebec Cultural Heritage Directory (Q57584014), listed in the general inventory of cultural heritage (Q16739336) of inventoried in the Quebec Cultural Heritage Directory (Q57584014), or even part of a heritage property like National Register of Historic Places contributing property (Q1129142), part of a Quebec heritage property (Q57584209) or part of cultural heritage site in the Czech Republic (Q30118385). We even have at the begin a look alike problem with the National Register of Historic Places (Q3719), the solution was to create National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910), not to create a new element. And the solution was relatively easy do, since moving to one item to another was easy.

And I do feel the was I entered in element of the intangible patrimony of Quebec (Q56551026) is good. Fralambert (talk) 15:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@VIGNERON: I agree we should always try to save info, not just discard it. But please take a look at https://w.wiki/4dAz and tell me what is the common theme between all these items. And what info should we extract from intangible cultural heritage status (P3259), and why not just use has list (P2354)?

I haven't studied heritage designation (P1435) but if it's on the same shaky ground as intangible cultural heritage status (P3259) then it should be replaced with something as well. Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 15:05, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir Alexiev: yes, almost all current value of this property should be changed but it's still not a reason for delation, the property in itself is good. And this property is very loosely related to the UNESCO, this property is for ICH in general (not just UNESCO ICH). In France, there is ~450 items protected as ICH and only ~20 of them protected as UNESCO ICH. What I proposed is to replace the value, for instance for France to replace National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage in France (Q21011287) with a new item "élément à l'inventaire du patrimoine culturel immatériel en France" (itself linked to National Inventory of Intangible Cultural Heritage in France (Q21011287) obviously ; liked it's done for tangible hertiage see inventoried in the Quebec Cultural Heritage Directory (Q57584014) and Répertoire du patrimoine culturel du Québec (Q3456276) for Québec mentionned above by Fralambert). What do you think? If you agree, I could change all 227 current value (1/4 of the total of current uses) in a few minutes with Quickstatement.

And yes, there is sometimes the same kind of confusion for heritage designation (P1435), I check them from time to time but this propety is used 2 million time so it's a bit more difficult (1/10 being in France, I checked almost only these ones).

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 18:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so we have various lists of tangible and intangible cultural heritage. Why not just use has list (P2354), why do we need a special property to link to those lists?

Fixing 1/4 of the values without clarifying what this property represents will not be useful.

And I don't see the value of creating an item "element of X" for every item "X" that is a list. Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 08:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Fralambert the above comment applies to your Jan 1 posting as well.

I'd like to ask you and everyone else: what is the definition of this property, since it obviously is not "status", and saying it was created to fix a mess with P1435 is not a definition? Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Vladimir Alexiev: I proposed to fix the 1/4 I know well to start, but if you don't want that, fine (less work for me, especially as it's not one item "element of X" for every X, it's can be more: one for each status; UNESCO has at least 3 status for example).

The definition is very clear, *it is* a status (that can be seen as parts of lists but since the seven Wonders, heritage protection has moved a long way; since the 70s at least, it's databases and cataloguing, not just lists anymore). We may want to make a distinction between "protected" and "protection" for the values (which indeed is better in theory) but it doesn't change nor this property scope, nor the laws and rules of ICH institutions (starting with the UNESCO ones).

@Pamputt: who might be interrested to pitch in as he just proposed Wikidata:Property proposal/identifiant Inventaire national du Patrimoine culturel immatériel.

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to fix it: values or definition?[edit]

It seems that it isn't really working out in the way it was designed. Probably the property creator should have insisted on getting more samples (guess who that was).

As Vladimir pointed out, from the property definition, the values should be "[intangible cultural heritage] statuses", but currently they are mostly "[intangible cultural heritage] inventories".

This is likely due to there being not that much differentiation available in each inventory. Also, while the sample available on creation was a status (at least in French) [1] (2016), it was later merged with the item for the inventory (2019). The current second sample (Q1659958) doesn't seem to be a proper status or inventory.

There are probably two ways to fix it:

1. either we use it as defined and correct the values with one (or possibly more) status items for each inventory
2. or we create a new property with a different definition for "listed in inventory intangible cultural heritage" accepting inventories as values. Once statements available for that, I'd delete this property.

Which solution do you prefer?

@Fralambert, Ymblanter, YULdigitalpreservation: participants from the 2016 discussion. --- Jura 06:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For #2, see Wikidata:Property proposal/inventory of intangible heritage. --- Jura 15:07, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or we create new items like listed in the general inventory of cultural heritage (Q16739336), National Register of Historic Places listed place (Q19558910) or Cultural Asset part of the cultural heritage of Catalonia (Q28034408) for the properties in the inventories. Fralambert (talk) 19:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be #1 (and the initial plan I thought). After further reflection, this seems indeed preferable and I withdrew the proposal. Obviously, the question about the values to use still needs to be sorted out, e.g. Q18481385#P31 is both "heritage designation" (#1) and "heritage register" (#2) as values. The P279 doesn't make it simpler either. --- Jura 10:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the confusion around this property. It is the remaining problem with modeling for Wikidata:WikiProject Intangible Cultural Heritage. I am sorry I did not find this discussion before going to extremes creating the project and importing the items.

First of all, I strongly support keeping the property, especially as it is a twin for heritage designation (P1435). I would have preferred using the same property or aligning them hierarchically. I also wonder if changes to this property would need to be reflected on that property. There are much more items using that and properties in that structure.

For the value, I think creating artificial elements for statuses is confusing and causes excess complexity. I am proposing to use the inventories as values, and assigning them a class of a designation.

Creating a new property might solve the problem, but it does not solve the overall structure of heritage items. It seems like a cleaning convention is needed! – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 09:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New project, centralized discussion[edit]

Hi again, everyone: I have created a project around ICH at Wikidata:WikiProject Intangible Cultural Heritage and created a subpage for discussing design issues at Wikidata:WikiProject Intangible_Cultural Heritage/Item_structures/Discussion and its talk page. I would be especially grateful for discussions on the overall structure for ICH that I have worked on in this graph. You can also find it on the discussion page. Hope you will join! – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2023 will be the 20th anniversary of Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Q5166256). We have been busy preparing global activities related to that. The national inventories of living heritage (intangible cultural heritage) will be imported in a coordinated manner from all over the world. It would be great to have as many of you involved as possible.

In the meanwhile I would like to question some aspects of modeling this property and have your permission to change things.

1. The constraints do not correspond to the domains of Intangible Cultural Heritage.

The domains of UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists (Q4435332) (See Intangible Heritage domains in the 2003 Convention are Oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage; Performing arts; Social practices, rituals and festive events; Knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe; and Traditional craftsmanship.
The allowed types for intangible cultural heritage status (P3259) are craft (Q2207288), party (Q200538), tradition (Q82821), activity (Q1914636), rite (Q628455), musical work (Q2188189), song (Q7366), music tradition (Q60733114), festival (Q132241), theatrical genre (Q7777573), food (Q2095) or musical instrument (Q34379).

I ask for your consent to tweak the constraints to better reflect the domains or their subsections and subclassses.

2. In the Wikidata:WikiProject Intangible Cultural Heritage project I have proposed that national inventories (as well as international lists) will also be considered designations. That can be done by marking the national inventories instance of (P31) national inventory of intangible cultural heritage (Q113040113), and national inventory of intangible cultural heritage (Q113040113) subclass of (P279) UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage designation (Q110320060) and a similar treatment for the international lists. The draft on the project page is not reflecting this properly yet, as it tries to balance between this and the existing practice.

3. The requirement that a designation (I propose inventory/list/designation) is subclass of (P279) intangible cultural heritage (Q59544) is very confusing and I propose to be deleted. There are many other properties where to add intangible cultural heritage (Q59544).

4. I cannot understand the need for intangible cultural heritage (Q59544) and Intangible Cultural Heritage (Q84036549). I propose the latter be merged with UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage designation (Q110320060).

5. The constraint conflicts with mass (P2067) is also very problematic as the heritage elements include for example several musical instruments and traditions around them. There cannot always be several items per tradition, so a musical tradition of playing an instrument will likely be an item instance of (P31) musical instrument (Q34379). It applies to other kinds of objects, musical instruments are not the only cases. I propose to delete this useless constraint. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 16:23, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot one more.

6. I would get transform as many items about intangible heritage in a specified region that are instance of (P31) Wikimedia list article (Q13406463) into national inventory of intangible cultural heritage (Q113040113) since they most often are articles about the national inventories including a list. If the articles are a mixture of national and UNESCO designations, the only remaining solution is to create a new item for the inventory. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Removed constraint[edit]

I have removed the constraint requirement for the items to be subclass of (P279) intangible cultural heritage (Q59544). That requirement pushes people to add intangible cultural heritage (Q59544) as value, which is contrary to how the property now works. Please join the Wikiproject mentioned above to discuss, and view the page How to import an inventory to review the current practice. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 06:26, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Property talk:P3259

Contents

Documentation

How to use ?[edit]

Questions[edit]

Total mess![edit]

How to fix it: values or definition?[edit]

New project, centralized discussion[edit]

Removed constraint[edit]

Navigation menu

Property talk:P3259

Documentation

How to use ?[edit]

Questions[edit]

Total mess![edit]

How to fix it: values or definition?[edit]

New project, centralized discussion[edit]

Removed constraint[edit]

Navigation menu

Search