Wikidata:Property proposal/Notable print

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

notable print[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Not done
DescriptionQid of a print (there may be more than one) that is a notable old representation of/from/for the work of art (mostly older out-of-print prints, but also paintings, archeological finds, sculptures, buildings, or other artefacts of religion, politics, or works of art) Notability can e.g. be of the forms: catalog representation for the artist or museum, Hollstein number (Dutch & Flemish prints), Bartsch number (old master prints), or some external id for the subject
Representsprint (Q11060274), engraving (Q22669429), etc
Data typeItem
Domainwork of printed art
Allowed valuesQid
Example 1View of Saxenburg estate with bleaching fields near Haarlem (Q21264555) -> Goldweigher's Field (Q21200482)
Example 2Dr. Brook Taylor's method of perspective made easy (Q55739221) -> Satire on False Perspective (Q7426243)
Example 3Conus marmoreus (Q1902297) -> The Shell (Q15874034)
Example 4Schilder-boeck (Q1157807) -> Portrait of Karel van Mander (Q58074274)
Example 5Two Children with a Cat (Q19326431) -> Two Children with a Cat (Q58074316)
Example 6Mona Lisa (Q12418) -> Mona Lisa (Q58087321)
Example 7Bird’s-eye View of Amsterdam (Q17558353) -> Bird's eye view of Amsterdam (Q52062987)
Example 8The Dream of Frederick III, Elector of Saxony (Q43981335) -> 1617 Reformation centenary broadsheet (Göttlicher Schrifftmessiger) (Q58299699)
Sourcethe documentation for the print should be on the print item
Planned usepart of an ongoing effort to include notable prints in Wikidata
Expected completenessnever complete

Motivation[edit]

As a first step to including prints on Wikidata, I think we need some properties to help connect them to other artworks. Once we have a large group of notable prints we can make decisions about how to further construct items about them (e.g. do we really want to import all instances of popular prints?) Feel free to add more than the few examples here. Jane023 (talk) 10:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

User:Zolo
Jane023 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
User:Vincent Steenberg
User:Kippelboy
User:Shonagon
Marsupium (talk) 13:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
GautierPoupeau (talk) 16:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Multichill (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Susannaanas (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2014 (UTC) I want to synchronize the handling of maps with this initiative[reply]
Mushroom (talk) 00:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jheald (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spinster (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
PKM (talk) 21:16, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]
Sic19 (talk) 21:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wittylama (talk) 13:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Armineaghayan (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Musedata102 (talk) 20:27, 26 November 2019 (UTC) Hannolans (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Martingggg
Zeroth (talk) 02:21, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:7samurais
User:mrtngrsbch
User:Buccalon
Infopetal (talk) 17:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Karinanw (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
Ahc84 (talk) 17:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:BeatrixBelibaste
Valeriummaximum
Bitofdust (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mathieu Kappler
Zblace (talk) 07:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oursana (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ham II (talk) 08:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts. Jane023 (talk) 11:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To find the same connections you can make a query like (pseudo-SPARQL, equivalent for other languages etc.): ?subject wdt:P4969|wdt:P361|… ?print. ?print wdt:instance of (P31)/wdt:subclass of (P279)* print (Q11060274). In worst case the existence of this property would lead to those properties not being added. Probably we should make them more visible, dedicating a part of this awful guideline we have, Wikidata:WikiProject Visual arts/Item structure, to them. Maybe we could create a place on item pages where they can be expected by adjusting MediaWiki:Wikibase-SortedProperties. Would there still be any advantage of having this property proposed over them? --Marsupium (talk) 16:19, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well the reason I am adding more example items is because in the literature there are lots of examples where the relationship is key, although the nature of this relationship can be very different. I am keeping the property unspecific for this reason. So to be clear, first the unspecific relationship can be easily made, and more refined relationships can be created later. It should be eassy to upload notable prints and indicate their strongest relationship to other artworks. Jane023 (talk) 17:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For example I mention Hollstein and Bartsch - I wanted to include Q numebrs and realized they don't exist on Wikidata (yet) except as people. Sigh. We need to make it easy to start and refine through iteration, not decide on some complicated hierarchy beforehand. Jane023 (talk) 17:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jane023: Hm, I'm not sure if I get your point. Do you mean it is easier to remember a single property name? Otherwise do you have a concrete single example where using "notable print" instead of one of the existing properties is an advantage? --Marsupium (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The obvious answer is use this property for the earliest or most popular documented print, rather than any of the multiple iterations of prints. We have no way of indicating a hierarchy of importance, especially for prints of specific locations. Jane023 (talk) 17:39, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I understand it, thank you, I had a broader WD:N-like definition in mind and also read that from your text. Also the template fields have confused me a bit. If I understand you right now, what is in the subject item/Represents field should go to allowed values. And the domain (the subject, the item where you want to put the property on) you plan is obviously much broader than “work of printed art”, that's the subject/values. I still think the scope the examples suggest is too broad. --Marsupium (talk) 18:05, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Jane023 Marsupium. I didn't know this property derivative work (P4969) (many thanks!) and the proposed property seems indeed a subclass of this concept. As Marsupium explain, using the nature of the item/derivative work leads to same idea and logical structure. If we want to limit redundant properties, it may be a better choice. The other things pointed by Jane is about the confusion with prints in wikidata, where works (FRBR) and items (FRBR) are mixed. This one for example met again last night, on which I contributed and which has become a documentary monster: Melencolia I (Q1362177). Happy halloween! With the progress of contribution on prints we come to the point where we need an item for the work and other items for the materializations. And here, I understand the interest of the property, to avoid the possibility to add several versions of the same work as derivative works. Best regards --Shonagon (talk) 18:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes exactly - and Melancholia is a good example. Think of this property a bit like notable work (P800) for people. I think that might help too. Jane023 (talk) 22:59, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If we have an item for a print, (or for a "print state/print edition", cf map edition (Q56753859)), isn't the proper set of relations:
<print (item)> exemplar of (P1574) <print edition>,
<print edition> edition or translation of (P629) <print>,
<print> based on (P144) <painting> ?
That would seem more suited to what may well be a run of many-to-one relations.
What further does the proposed inversion, <painting> "notable print" <print>, give us?
And what would we mean by "notable"? What would make a print (or rather: print family, because that's really what we mean) notable or not ? Jheald (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the examples in the proposal. The idea of one-way identification (i.e. the print comes after the object) is of course a great idea to do, but we don't have all of those prints for many objects. In the case of paintings, we sometimes know the painting follows the print for example, but we still want the "notable print" on the painting. For painting series of the same subject (and for older series it is not clear whether these were made by the same master) there are often also more than one print, and it is unclear which print should be associated with which painting. This enables a fuzzy link when the relationships you suggest are unknown. Jane023 (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jane023: Thanks, Jane. To your first point, however, this proposed property is to be item-valued. So it wouldn't be usable anyway, unless we had an item for the print.
Regarding paintings after prints: it seems to me potentially extremely confusing if this property will sometimes indicate a print that the painting is based on, if almost always it will be indicating a print that is based on the painting. Better to use <painting> based on (P144) <print> for the first case.
As to the case when it is not clear which print should be associated with which painting, I would settle for <print> based on (P144) <painting series> in that case -- it seems the most honest way to express the relationship. Jheald (talk) 17:50, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I can't make prints any more or less confusing than they already are. I see no need to be scared of this property making things more confusing. It is in fact very useful to be able to link a painting to an associated popular print, especially when you can't determine what the print is based on at first glance. In the examples I gave, there are many 1-1 relationships, but of course there can be many-many relationships, where a series of paintings is based on a few prints, themselves based e.g. on various aspects of one popular altarpiece. We may not have many prints in Wikidata yet, but I hope this will change - see my comment under "motivation". I am not proposing to use this property when the relationship is not documented. The documentation should be in the print item (but it is sometimes included in information about objects sold on the art market). Jane023 (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I'm sorry, but I really think this isn't a right way. Unlike what the motivation suggests all the aforementioned properties are there and completely sufficient to describe the relationship itself ("notable" aside). In my eyes there is no need to have a dedicated property for prints as opposed to any other kind of works. The "notable" part indeed seems to make it different somehow, but it isn't well-defined as from what I understand of the proposal so far. If there should be some need to qualify the relation of something to a print of it, then a qualifier would probably be a better way, maybe a derivative work (P4969) and object has role (P3831) combination. --Marsupium (talk) 23:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, see my comment about notable work (P800). This property is to include the notable print(s) rather than just another way to link up any prints (which of course can be very many over the centuries for multiple editions, if we ever import bibliographic metadata). I would also be happy btw if that property was expanded to be able to be used on non-human items. Jane023 (talk) 12:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose per Marsupium last comment. The proposed property is overly specific and constrains the type of the object (to Print) but that is an inherent attribute of the object, it should not be carried by the prop. (By analogy, Mother is a worse prop than Parent because what happens if you link Mother to a male?). Marsupium and Jheald mention 4 existing props; Jane do you really want to create a 5th one and increase the confusion? What we need is more usage guidelines; and thank you for the excellent examples that move us significantly towards that. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for liking my examples! I chose them precisely because I want to show the relationship of the item to a print. I find it interesting that you feel I am being specific, because this property is just one of many properties I would like to propose for prints, and this is the least specific of them. Your point that the properties derivative work (P4969), part of (P361), depicted by (P1299), published in (P1433) can be used instead is not true. None of these expect the object to be a print, which is the whole point. Secondly, the study of prints is extremely complex and the examples chosen are explicitly unsuited for derivative work (P4969), which would be very convenient indeed if all prints were well documented as to their origins. I think you will find that some engravers are considered artists in their own right, and many paintings are based on concepts known from "iconic prints" known for their popularity in politics, religion or art. So the same problem holds for depicted by (P1299) in the "chicken-and-egg" cases. The shell case is interesting because it is an exemplar of a period when shell collecting was at its peak. Lastly, whether something is part of a larger work or published in a work is useful, but has no indication in terms of being the "notable iconic image" part of the work. Jane023 (talk) 14:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/Notable_print&oldid=972514016"