Talk:Q105815710
Autodescription — performing arts group (Q105815710)
- Useful links:
- View it! – Images depicting the item on Commons
- Report on constraint conformation of “performing arts group” claims and statements. Constraints report for items data
- Parent classes (classes of items which contain this one item)
- Subclasses (classes which contain special kinds of items of this class)
- ⟨
performing arts group⟩ on wikidata tree visualisation (external tool)(depth=1) - Generic queries for classes
- See also
- This documentation is generated using
{{Item documentation}}.
Rationale for this superclass[edit]
As part of the project grant Modelling and Populating Performing Arts Data in Wikidata, members of the advisory inventoried many different class items denoting performing arts groups or organizations (see this Google Doc). Many items use the label "troupe" (for example, theatrical troupe (Q742421) and dance troupe (Q2393314)), which is perceived as a pejorative term nowadays by performing arts practitioners. Other items use the label "company", which is preferred to describe incorporated organizations in the performing arts. But the term "company" is specific and would exclude unincorporated groups. After having examined all existing class items and their linked Wikipedia articles, none was suited to denote all performing arts ensembles, troupes, companies, organizations and other groups. theatrical troupe (Q742421) might have been a good contender, but its linked Wikipedia articles conceptually differ slightly from one another, authority files associated with this item also appear to differ, and the label "troupe" is an obstacle to broader use of this class item by Wikimedians. Consequently, the advisory committee proposed this new class item as a superclass for all performing arts groups and organizatinons. --Fjjulien (talk) 21:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
- Do I understand the choice of the term "group" is mainly motivated by its alignment with Schema, LRMoo and CIDOC-CRM? Honestly, I find it almost as much pejorative as the term "troupe". Would have prefered "Performing arts organization". Feedback? Youyouca (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- "Group" appeared to me to be more neutral and inclusive, even more modern for disciplines such as dance or theater. My feeling is that as a superclass the interpretation of each discipline must be minimized and included even in an imperfect way and troupe was very divisive, very patrimonial too. Organization seems to me risky because it opens an ambiguity on the legal status or not of the group, right? --Vero Marino (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Youyouca: Yes, the term "group" was retained to signify the intended mapping with Schema, LRMoo and CIDOC-CRM. But it is not the only reason. This superclass is meant to include both incorporated groups (i.e., organizations), as well as unincorporated groups acting together as a collective agent. lrmer:E8 collective agent is broad enough to include, for example, indie music groups. It is therefore inclusive of all groups within the NAICS 7111 - Performing arts companies, a classification that equally includes "71112 - Dance companies" and "71113 - Musical groups and artists". Further, it is inclusive of theatre troupes from the 15th-19th century that are classified as theatrical troupe (Q742421) or theatre troupe (Q2416217) in Wikidata. Nothing would preclude the creation of a "performing arts organization" class if it served a particular purpose. However, "performing arts organization" could not be stated a superclass of theatrical troupe (Q742421), theatre troupe (Q2416217) or dance troupe (Q2393314), because these class items can include both incorporated and incorporated groups. Finally, as to the "pejorative" feeling that the term "group" might elicit, it is important to bear in mind that the purpose of this superclass is not terminological standardization, but rather conceptual harmonization. Subclasses of performing arts group (Q105815710) do not need to be relabelled "group". They can absolutely retain their current labels or adopt any new label that user deem more likely to ellicit broader use by contributors. Fjjulien (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Vero Marino: Indeed, the term "organization" can be a little ambiguous. In present-day usage, it is often associated with a not-for-profit and/or charitable status. Therefore, it may not be perceived as an appropriate term to denote for-profit corporations. Further, some large not-for-profit cultural organizations prefered to be called "institution" to express a particular status or prestige that sets them apart from other cultural organizations. Finally, many present-day artists and cultural workers are slowly moving away from the not-for-profit organization model and are exploring other, leaner, means of functioning as group (see Dart, Ray & Akingbola, Olakunle & Allen, Katie. (2019). Nonprofit adaptation and variation in changing contexts: The speciation of shared platform organizations. Canadian journal of nonprofit and social economy research. 10. 10.22230/cjnser.2019v10n1a282.). For cultural workers who opt for these kinds of structure, the term "organization" could well be as much ill-suited as "group". Fjjulien (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
- "Group" appeared to me to be more neutral and inclusive, even more modern for disciplines such as dance or theater. My feeling is that as a superclass the interpretation of each discipline must be minimized and included even in an imperfect way and troupe was very divisive, very patrimonial too. Organization seems to me risky because it opens an ambiguity on the legal status or not of the group, right? --Vero Marino (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
- Members of the advisory committee for the project grant Wikidata and the performing arts met on March 25th, 2021 to discuss this class item (ref. document here). They consider it a proper superclass for performing arts organizations and other groups. Subclass statements were added to 11 performing arts class items. See the resulting graph.--Vero Marino (talk) 19:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Support Gregory Saumier-Finch (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2021 (UTC)- Support Beireke1 (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support--Vero Marino (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Alignment with RDF ontologies[edit]
This class item is meant to be a domain-specific subclass of LRMoo F55 Collective agent (new class in LRMoo 0.6, sameas LRM-E8), which is a subclass of CIDOC E74 Group. --Fjjulien (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Alignment with economic classifications[edit]
Most present-day performing arts groups would fit under:
- ISIC Rev. 4: R9000 Creative, arts and entertainment activities (and possibly other classifications)
- NACE Rev. 2: 90.01 Performing arts, 90.02 Support activities to performing arts, 90.04 Operation of arts facilities (and possibly other classifications)
- NAICS 2017 3.0: within 711 Performing arts, spectator sports and related industries in one of these industries:
- 711111 Theatre (except musical) companies
- 711112 Musical theatre and opera companies
- 711120 Dance companies
- 711130 Musical groups and artists
- 711190 Other performing arts companies
- 711311 Live theatres and other performing arts presenters with facilities
- 711321 Performing arts promoters (presenters) without facilities
- 711322 Festivals without facilities
- 711411 Agents and managers for artists
For more information see this mapping of industry classifications. --Fjjulien (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Performing arts Discussing one particular item is valuable... but highly unusual. Usually that's done in respective Project pages.
- How about trying now to enter some of this info as structured data? I tried to add ISIC:
- Can't add it on agent performing arts group (Q105815710), have to add it on activity (performing arts (Q184485))
- So you need a link industry (P452) between them
- But the source of that link should have a particular set of classes: organization, etc etc. So please now investigate whether Organization matches your needs of also an informal group (I believe it does), and add that class
- The target also complains "should be an industry", so now you decide whether to add class "industry" to performing arts (Q184485) (hope that doesn't hurt anyone's feelings :-)
- You can see a constraint violation on "R9000": should be "R" or "9000" (I guess "R" is the branch, and "9000" the more specific node)
- To add the other classifications, you also need to find the most specific common parent: this is preferable than listing a bunch of children.
- Cheers! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Hello Vladimir Alexiev
It would indeed be useful to implement industry classifications as structured data. However, as you experienced, it's not so simple. Industries in Wikidata appear to have been modelled differently than in the real-world application, for economic statistics. I am most familiar with the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is a classification I regularly use to produce and analyze employment and GDP statistics in the performing arts. In NAICS, "establishments" (which can be entire organizations or business divisions within a parent organization) are classified according to their primary economic output. In other words, types of organizations are assigned a class based on their main activity. If industry classifications were implemented in this fashion in Wikidata, we should be able to assign industry classifications to organization subclasses. That's how NAICS code (P3224) was designed, but International Standard Industrial Classification code Rev.4 (P1796) has industry (Q268592) type constraint that restricts its use to entire industry classes (which aren't the same as domains). This is something I will eventually clear up with the WikiProject Economics, but I have a few other priorities on my Wikidata to-do list.
- Hello Vladimir Alexiev
- P.S.: "Discussing one particular item is valuable" - Because this particular discussion needed distinct topic headings, I thought it would be easier to keep discussions tidy in this talk page rather than on the WikiProject Performing arts. More documentation on properties and typology for organizations is coming up soon.
Fjjulien (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- P.S.: "Discussing one particular item is valuable" - Because this particular discussion needed distinct topic headings, I thought it would be easier to keep discussions tidy in this talk page rather than on the WikiProject Performing arts. More documentation on properties and typology for organizations is coming up soon.
Focus on the primary value chain[edit]
This class item was initially defined as "group or organization primarily engaged in the production and/or presentation of performances or in any other activity within the value chain of the performing arts (can be an informal group or a group operating as a corporate body)". This definition focused on the value chain of the performing arts was chosen to align with economic classifications. However, the initial class hierarchy that we defined for this class cast a wider net. Based on discussions within the advisory committee for the Modelling and Populating Performing Arts Data in Wikidata project grant, I stated music organization (Q32178211) to be a subclass of performing arts group (Q105815710). But music organization (Q32178211) includes several classes such as music school, recording studio and record label that do not belong to the primary value chain of the performing arts (see the graph of subclasses of "music organization"). As consequences queries capture many non-performing groups.
Proposed solution: remove music organization (Q32178211) from the class hierarchy and to instead state musical ensemble (Q2088357) as a direct subclass of performing arts group (Q105815710). Do you agree?
For your information, musical ensemble (Q2088357) has many subclasses, some of which are very broadly used. There are as of today 99565 instances of musical ensemble (Q2088357) or sublcasses of (see the query or Q2088357 in SQUID). In comparison, there are 111892 instances of music organization (Q32178211).
Notified participants of WikiProject Performing arts
Fjjulien (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support musical ensemble (Q2088357) is the one! Youyouca (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support Looking really good by using musical ensemble (Q2088357) instead. Gregory Saumier-Finch (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
- Support--Vero Marino (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Done @Youyouca: @Saumier: Here is the resulting graph. As of today, with this class hierarchy, there are 107,525 instances of performing arts group (Q105815710). More updated statistics are available on the WikiProject Performing arts. Fjjulien (talk) 21:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Oppose
Notified participants of WikiProject Performing arts Why do you think our project can decide that music organization (Q32178211) is useless or wrong? I'm sure there are a lot more people that are interested in music than our small group. I think that music organization (Q32178211) meaning "organization somehow related to music" is a useful and relevant class.
- Use the fact that WD (like any semantic database) allows a multi-parented hierarchy to work around the implied problem:
- Define "music performing group" as a subclass of BOTH performing arts group (Q105815710) and music organization (Q32178211), and put your subclasses under it --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Vladimir Alexiev: Including or excluding a given class item from a given hierarchy is by no means value statement on that class item. There is absolutely nothing wrong with music organization (Q32178211): it's a popular class item and it obviously serve a purpose for those who use it. In the case at hand, we needed to address that fact that some instances of subclasses music organization (Q32178211) were not also instance of our proposed performing arts group (Q105815710) superclass: the primary activity of recording studios and record labels is not the production or presentation of live performances. As you pointed out in your opposition, we needed a "music performing group" class item as a subclass of both performing arts group (Q105815710) and music organization (Q32178211). It turned out that this class item already existed: musical ensemble (Q2088357). It is defined as "group of people who perform instrumental and/or vocal music, with the ensemble typically known by a distinct name" and all instances of its subclasses are also instances of performing arts group (Q105815710), so it was the candidate we needed. musical ensemble (Q2088357) was already a subclass of music organization (Q32178211). All I did was to also state it as a subclass of performing arts group (Q105815710). I hope this alleviates your concerns. Fjjulien (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Fjjulien: Thanks for the explanation! You may want to remove superclass "group of humans" from "music ensemble" as it's redundant: surely it is an ancestor of both "music group" and "performing group" --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
- @Vladimir Alexiev: While I usually prefer to avoid redundancy, I'm actually fairly comfortable with this one. The subclass of (P279) group of humans (Q16334295) statement offers a friendly reminder that this and other "organization" subclasses all have the same "group" superclass (which is the equivalent to CIDOC E74). Over the course of our project grant discussions, advisors had hard time grappling with organization and other group classes. It wasn't until we turned to CIDOC to confirm that "organization" is a subclass of "group" that things started to become clearer. If this redundancy can help others arrive to the same thought process, then all the better. But if you feel strongly about removing it, I won't oppose. Fjjulien (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2021 (UTC)