Property talk:P5102

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

nature of statement
(qualifier only) the underlying circumstances of this statement
Data typeItem
Allowed valuesofficial (Q29509043), unofficial (Q29509080), de jure (Q132555), de facto (Q712144), rarely (Q28962310), often (Q28962312), hypothesis (Q41719), uncredited appearance (Q16582801), proposal (Q3918409), hypothetically (Q18603603), expected (Q50376823), allegation (Q2839009), possibly (Q30230067), originally (Q53737447), self-proclaimed (Q17125668), disputed (Q18912752), approximation (Q27058), project management estimation (Q965330), unconfirmed (Q28831311), sometimes changes (Q24025284), accusation (Q19357312), extrapolation (Q744069), to be announced (Q603908), unpublished work (Q26944781), interim (Q4895105), declared deserted (Q45123627), presumably (Q18122778), allegedly (Q32188232), hypothetical entity (Q18706315), requirement (Q774228), earliest recorded instance (Q63971158), sample credit (Q64447881), certainty (Q1520777), instances have exactly one value (Q68575046), attribution (Q230768), circa (Q5727902), fanon (Q3739281), canon (Q53815), minimum (Q10585806), maximum (Q10578722), mean (Q2796622), median (Q226995), acting (Q4676846), greater than (Q47035128), less than (Q52834024), greater than or equal to (Q55935291), less than or equal to (Q55935272), probably (Q56644435) and value obtained by liquid phase measurements, which may have large error because of association effect (Q87372262)
ExampleVermont (Q16551)hypothesis (Q41719)
See alsosourcing circumstances (P1480), statement disputed by (P1310), statement supported by (P3680)
Lists
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses18,447
Search for values
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
One of official (Q29509043), unofficial (Q29509080), de jure (Q132555), de facto (Q712144), rarely (Q28962310), often (Q28962312), hypothesis (Q41719), uncredited appearance (Q16582801), proposal (Q3918409), hypothetically (Q18603603), expected (Q50376823), allegation (Q2839009), possibly (Q30230067), originally (Q53737447), self-proclaimed (Q17125668), disputed (Q18912752), approximation (Q27058), project management estimation (Q965330), unconfirmed (Q28831311), sometimes changes (Q24025284), accusation (Q19357312), extrapolation (Q744069), to be announced (Q603908), unpublished work (Q26944781), interim (Q4895105), declared deserted (Q45123627), presumably (Q18122778), allegedly (Q32188232), hypothetical entity (Q18706315), requirement (Q774228), earliest recorded instance (Q63971158), sample credit (Q64447881), certainty (Q1520777), instances have exactly one value (Q68575046), attribution (Q230768), circa (Q5727902), fanon (Q3739281), canon (Q53815), minimum (Q10585806), maximum (Q10578722), mean (Q2796622), median (Q226995), acting (Q4676846), greater than (Q47035128), less than (Q52834024), greater than or equal to (Q55935291), less than or equal to (Q55935272), probably (Q56644435), value obtained by liquid phase measurements, which may have large error because of association effect (Q87372262): value must be one of the specified items. Please expand list if needed. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5102#One of, values statistics, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
Scope is as qualifiers (Q54828449): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5102#scope, hourly updated report, 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.)

Label for this property[edit]

@Valentina.Anitnelav:, thanks for pointing out the existence of this new property on Project Chat. I think it will be very helpful. However, I find the label "nature of statement" confusing. What this property does is restrict or modify the scope of the statement. This property seems to be similar to refine date (P4241) in that it allows us to record fuzzy concepts as stated in references. I would prefer a label like "refine statement".

Also, I'd like to add a new value "originally" (alias "traditionally"), which I would use for clothing and textiles (something might be "traditionally" woven of wool, but "sometimes" uses synthetics or blends). Thoughts? - PKM (talk) 20:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that there could be a better label although I'm struggling to find one that fits to all allowed values. I'm not sure about "refine statement" - this suggests to me that the statement itself (e.g. its content) is refined. I don't think that it would be a problem to add new values. I'll ping the persons who proposed this property for their opinion: @Swpb:, @Deryck Chan: - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I see this as something like applies to part (P518) but refers to part of the property, not part of the subject; or sourcing circumstances (P1480) but refers to the validity of the statement itself rather than the source. Swpb and I intended this property to be a successor of the now-deleted P794 ("as"), covering use cases that qualify that truth-value of the statement itself. I would expect all the allowed values to be adjectives or adverbs that qualify a relationship and I agree with Valentina that we should feel free to add items to the list of allowed values - unless another relevant property exists. Deryck Chan (talk) 09:25, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict). Restoring my own comment after Swpb's commenting deleted it. Deryck Chan (talk) 15:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry Deryck. Swpb (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Valentina that "refine statement" does not adequately capture the allowed values, but it would be fine as an alias. I chose "nature of statement", because these qualifier mostly explains what kind of statement it is: an official statement, a de facto statement, a hypothesis, an allegation. While the qualifier does change or "refine" some statements (e.g. rarely/often), it mostly puts statements into context. I think the "originally/traditionally" value is a great idea; would an existing item like tradition (Q82821) fit the bill? Swpb (talk) 13:34, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
As mentioned above, I think values should mostly be adjectives or adverbs, and while "traditionally" is related to "tradition" I don't think that Q-item should be the value here. I am going to add "orignally/traditionally" as a value. Thanks for the comments, all. - PKM (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Conflict with sourcing circumstances (P1480) on dates management[edit]

Hi, I appreciate this new property. However, as you may see in Help:dates, there are 4 main qualifiers to refine an undetermined date, and specificaly the P1480 manage the diferents values related with "doubt situation": circa (Q5727902), near (Q21818619), presumably (Q18122778), disputed (Q18912752). Now it seems that one of this vàlues must be use under P5102, but no the others that remain in P1480. I disagree splitting similar concept in function of its values because increase complexity in the access and the infoboxes/templates that handle dates. Recently, a bot moved several P1480 to P5102 as you can see in special:diff/672107727 and we lose this info in cawiki templates. My pourpose is keep gathered all this values for the dates in one of them (P1480 or P5102), in order to have a coherent focus for similar concept. I ping the persons who proposed this property for their opinion: @Swpb:, @Deryck Chan: and @Pasleim: who runs the changing bot. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 05:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I run that bot based on a request. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion on the use cases of P1480 or P5102. You probably want to leave a comment on Wikidata:Requests for comment/Close-out of statements formerly using P794. --Pasleim (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm fine with consolidating these values under one property. For dates, sourcing circumstances (P1480) probably makes more sense: uncertainty in a date is a matter of sourcing, not of the underlying fact. So I support moving disputed (Q18912752) back to sourcing circumstances (P1480). Swpb (talk) 12:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)