Property talk:P642

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

of
qualifier stating that a statement applies within the scope of a particular item
Descriptionstatement qualifier to describe the scope of a relation. See also: applies to part (P518).
Data typeItem
DomainAny item (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Allowed valuesTypically places (note: this should be moved to the property statements)
Example
According to this template: <Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Martigny> position held (P39): mayor of a place in France (Q382617) of (P642): Rochefourchat (Q323644)
According to statements in the property:
Jean-Baptiste Le Moyne de Martigny (Q28015959)Rochefourchat (Q323644)
When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Robot and gadget jobsDeltaBot does the following jobs:
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P642 (Q35489153)
See alsoapplies to part (P518), relative to (P2210), facet of (P1269), has parts of the class (P2670), closest approach (P6354)
Lists
  • <items with the most statements of this property>
  • Count of items by number of statements (chart)
  • Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart)
  • Items with the most identifier properties
  • Items with no other statements
  • <most recently created items>
  • Items with novalue claims
  • Items with unknown value claims
  • Usage history
  • Database reports/Constraint violations/P642
  • <random list>
  • Proposal discussionProposal discussion
    Current uses3,421,604
    Search for values
    [create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
    Scope is as qualifiers (Q54828449): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
    Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
    List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P642#scope, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)


    Related properties[edit]

    applies to part (P518) when the restriction applies to a part of the item itself

    Translation[edit]

    Just saying that this is very hard to translate, at least in Finnish because we don't have many prepositions in the language. --Stryn (talk) 19:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

    Totally agree, in Lithuanian language we use Genitive case for this „of“ purpose.--Zygimantus (talk) 07:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
    Totally agree here that it's impossible to translate this into East Asian languages, where it's impossible to put a genitive after the noun being modified. Chinese (all variants) and Japanese can only do "A's B", not "B of A". Deryck Chan (talk) 23:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

    Scope?...[edit]

    This property lacks a proper definition. —Tinm (d) 19:37, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

    Agreed. When it was still called "of", people were using it for everything and nothing. The label "within the scope of" does not seem to make sense in most cases. Is this qualifier really providing useful information in a situation where you do not already know what the proper relationship between the items involved should be? If not, then one should probably go for more specific solutions with a more narrow definition. --Markus Krötzsch (talk) 15:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
    Confusing. In case this helps, here's some statistics: This property is used as a qualifier for some 147 properties, the most common ones being instance of (P31) (9746 uses), position held (P39) (4428 uses), P1112 (P1112) (2927 uses), winner (P1346) (1694 uses), postal code (P281) (1107 uses), Pokédex / Pokémon browser number (P1685) (1010 uses), occupation (P106) (904 uses), subclass of (P279) (768 uses), use (P366) (308 uses), is a list of (P360) (249 uses), and symptoms (P780) (240 uses). This is going to take some cleaning up. --Yair rand (talk) 01:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Tinm, Markus Krötzsch, Yair rand: Only English (and "Canadian" and "British" English) has the lengthy "within the scope" attached to the preposition; every other language that I can read seems to just label this as a simple preposition. In English it was also originally simply "of" as the archive of the proposal shows. It was changed a few months ago - why? While the change did pull in content from the description, it does NOT seem to me to be an improvement on the simple 'of'. I believe it should be changed back to 'of' for English to match how it is expressed in other languages. Perhaps the description needs to be improved also. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:19, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    While changing the label to 'of' the English description also ought to be changed - maybe 'qualifier to add context regarding where or what the statement applies to'? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
    @Swpb: any reason why you changed the en label ? I guess the qualifier was used as a "meaningless" multi-purpose qualifier that had any sense only in the context of a statement. With the change of label, this changes everything. Should'nt we go back instead ? author  TomT0m / talk page 17:36, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

    While the issue is not resolved, I cancelled the change of label. Non concerted and not explained as far as I know. author  TomT0m / talk page 15:53, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

    Classes where this is used[edit]

    The most common property this is used to qualify is instance of (P31)

    Here's a query for the most common P31 classes that P642 is used on, together with an example item and an example value:

    tinyurl.com/k6hwfba

    Jheald (talk) 01:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

    Proper use?[edit]

    Is this an acceptable use of this property? Q6259215#P527 --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

    No, usually such statements are not used at category items at all. --Infovarius (talk) 11:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

    used as a qualifier in reference record[edit]

    @ChristianKl: This could be used as a qualifier in reference record, as the examples in, Q43977122#P577 and Q43977130#P577. It is used to scope the indirect reference entity, stated in (P248):Q44287862, to a specific item. --Ans (talk) 07:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

    Those references are problematic in a way that goes beyond the usage of "of". The semantics of stated in (P248) assert that two items with the same value are referring to the same source. Your constraint violations break that promise that's valuable for linked data.
    Changing our data model in such a way that breaks guarantees on which data reusers can hope to rely is not something should be donewithout seeking consensus beforehand.
    In addition, Wikipedia url's aren't valid values for reference URL (P854). Everything that gets imported from from Wikipedia is supposed to use imported from Wikimedia project (P143). This allows Wikipedias to make a decision not to import data from Wikidata that only has Wikipedia sources. ChristianKl () 11:59, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl:
    1. The propose of this discussion here is to seek for consensus?
    2. I use imported from Wikimedia project (P143) only when it is imported from the same wikipedia item (the wikipedia article is linked to sitelink on the same wikidata item that it is imported to). I use reference URL (P854) with a Wikipedia url, if it is imported from Wikipedia item that is not the same as wikidata item, since merely using "imported from" does not give provenance from which specific wikipedia article it is imported. Or we need to use of (P642) as a qualifier to "imported from" to give provenance of a specific Wikipedia article? I prefer to use "imported from":"wikipedia article" - "of":<item> pair rather than Wikipedia url, since its semantic is more well-defined than the Wikipedia url. I use Wikipedia url as just an interim solution. I've thought that it should later be converted to a more well-defined concept without loss of provenance information.
    3. This allows Wikipedias to make a decision not to import data from Wikidata that only has Wikipedia sources. <-- I know that, but I've already thought that Wikipedian can also parse the url to know that it is imported from Wikipedia (also, just for interim solution).
    --Ans (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    You didn't ping any Wikiprojects for input or list this discussion on the project chat to get input, so it's not likely to get substantial input. But even if you had that wouldn't lead to anybody supporting your proposal just as nobody did in the deletion discussion.
    There's no parsing of the URL when Wikipedia imports data and Wikipedia currently filters out references that use imported from Wikimedia project (P143) to prevent Wikipedia references. While I do consider it valuable to provide exact reference to where data from Wikipedia comes from, the inability to do so is partly by design to discourage the usage of Wikipedia as source (eg. in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/wikimedia_revision_identifier there was the argument that "Wikipedia is not a source"). ChristianKl () 22:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
    It seems that the latest attempt at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic#Wikimedia_import_URL will be successful.

    Discussion elsewhere[edit]

    There's a discussion relating to the appropriate use of of (P642) at Property talk:P1435#Allowed qualifiers - P642 vs. P361. Comments welcome. — Ipoellet (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

    Usages on Japanese expressways' interchanges/junctions...[edit]

    Well I only ask for usages as "main statements", the usages as qualifiers are not affected.

    I would love to know if there's ways to replace those usages, which over-filled this SPARQL Query. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

    @B.O.B. jp, フォット, Ennpitsu, Raimei BT, 新幹線:@アストロニクル, 610CH-405: which I more or less know that they edited such items. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    @Okkn: How do you think about this? --2409:8902:9002:11FF:A782:9881:88C6:78CB 06:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
    We may need a new property similar to connecting line (P81). --Okkn (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)