Wikidata:Property proposal/Sells

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

typically sells[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Descriptiontype of goods particular type of shops is typically selling
Representssubclass of shop (Q213441) which specialize on specific type of products
Data typeItem
Domainsubclass of shop shop (Q213441)
Allowed valuesQ subclasses of goods goods (Q28877), never some specific brand
Allowed unitsthe property should always point to the most generic class of products which store typically sells. I.e. insted of pointing to "water", "juice" it should point to "nonalcoholic drinks".
Example 1bookstore (Q200764)book (Q571)
Example 2sex shop (Q221618)sex toy (Q10816)
Example 3bike shop (Q26721034)bicycle (Q11442)
Planned useShop types are tied by P1282 to OpenStreetMap, after wikidata contain all these information it would be possible to do geographical searches not by types of shops, but by the type of item you want to buy.
Expected completenessalways incomplete
Robot and gadget jobsno
See alsoOSM tag or key (P1282)

Motivation[edit]

Many subclasses of shop (Q213441) are surrently described as "shop where XY is sold" or even named "XY shop". Human can most of the time easily derive the thing which can be bought in the shop just from this description (or just by the name of the shop type) but the structured information is missing in wikidata at the moment. Gorn (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Update: the property is not to be used with universal shops like supermarket, where lots of things can be bought. The property should always point to the most generic class of products which store typically sells. I.e. insted of pointing to "water", "juice" it should point to "nonalcoholic drinks".

There are currently 175 types of shops, see [1]

Examples[edit]

Item Item lable Sells
Q221618 sex shop Q10816
Q13164546 butcher shop Q10990
Q11284331 anime shop Q1107
Q1318959 toy store Q11422
Q26721034 bike shop Q11442
Q2090555 clothing store Q11460
Q13107184 pharmacy Q12140
Q1509937 perfumery Q131746
Q1311064 ice cream parlor Q13233
Q786803 car dealership Q1420
Q47516358 furniture shop Q14745
Q20708021 jewellery shop Q161439
Q47516196 paint store Q174219
Q47516018 fireplace shop Q188669
Q47528737 golf store Q2467501
Q21117149 wine shop Q282
Q24140788 cannabis shop Q2845
Q1756711 video rental shop Q30070675
Q145658 greengrocer Q3314483, Q11004
Q2243978 record shop Q354004
Q21992963 krupařství­ Q36465
Q220142 pet store Q39201, Q6648982
Q16406 smoke shop Q44106
Q274393 bakery Q4498085, Q477248
Q10431511 flower shop Q506
Q1529413 glaziery Q5567362
Q200764 bookstore Q571
Q43182520 computer shop Q68
Q11707 restaurant Q746549
Q260569 garden centre Q756
Q47516343 candle shop Q79746
Q1007870 commercial art gallery Q838948
Q30022 café Q8486
Q47516067 bottled gas shop Q8539331

Discussion[edit]

It is my fist proposal process, so I would be glad if you let me know if there are any formal mistakes in the proposal. Gorn (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It does look like we don't have a property for this so it may be needed. We do have product or material produced (P1056), so for consistency I think the English label here probably should be "product or material sold". ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:36, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: You mean the name of the label "Sells" should be replaced or another part of the proposal? Gorn (talk) 18:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Gorn: yes, that was what I was thinking, but there is an advantage to a nice short descriptive label, so it's not a strong opinion. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
        • @ArthurPSmith: I am weakly against renaming, because it is brief and clear as it is now for me, but if more people see strong anvantage of renaming, than why not. Gorn (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 20:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment. There should be an example with an actual company. Such as Hydro Flask (Q65054948)vacuum flask (Q23664). This item here used as an example also establishes that some cleaning will be needed to remove improper uses of product or material produced (P1056). Thierry Caro (talk) 20:12, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Thierry Caro: The proposal as it was originally ment is that the triplet joint "type of shop" with "type of product". It was not meant for individual companies. I am not against widening the scope, but I am not sure if it eould not complicate the proposal process. If so, I would kesve it as it is. Gorn (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question what about services? --- Jura 05:50, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: I like idea but how would you rename the predicate. I fear if it is too complicated, it won't be usable. However I have no idea if generalky wikidata prefers more general or more specific predicates. Also do services have usually defined Q items? Like "jurisdical advice"? It might end up as circular definition. Gorn (talk) 18:17, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I suppose it depends on the property and the person you ask. Contributors tend to favor one thing, data users another. "hairdresser" => hairdressing? The risk here is that someone tries to add a statement for every store selling the same green cover for their iPhone X in a city. --- Jura 11:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question could you add samples with a supermarket and a shopping mall if it should apply to these. --- Jura 05:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Should it apply to or not? --- Jura 11:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: I think this is a conercase and there either can be no predicate for universal shops like supermarket or very general ones, like "Supermarket sells drinks" etc. Gorn (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gorn: I think you did a great job. However, the description field doesn't allow Wikitext templates. Can you exchange it to plain English?
The open questions we should discuss are: (1) Should we allow the property to be used for individual instances of shops? (2) Should we allow it organizations that sell services? ChristianKl❫ 16:01, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: Thanks for your advice. As I said I am new to proposal process so I migh left out other importantvfields as well. I changed the description to plain Engish. (Is there "is" or "are"?). As far as (1) and (2) is concerned I have no strong opinion. I would prefer if more experienced wikidata users guided this decision in line with useal wikidata practice. If it was only for me to decide I would say 1:no, 2:yes if it is usual practice + simple enough naming is suggested + we make sure that most services provided do already have wikidata record.
    • @ChristianKl: I think a separate property may be needed for instances of stores or organisations because it's a slightly different relationship (those things sell specific goods/services, whereas as I comment below, a type of store only typically sells a good). --SilentSpike (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Peter F. Patel-Schneider: what are your thoughts on this? --- Jura 11:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Symbol split vote.svg Split support and oppose In my opinion, the type of store describes what is sold there. Even the Label is enough. If in doubt, visit the WP page to understand what is sold in this type of store. Putting data that is sold will be appropriate for some Item and not for others, as each Item being of the subclass of shop (Q213441) will not sell exactly the same as another Item. Other Q213441 will have a list so long that the data will be de-structured: in your proposal, nothing indicates that department store (Q216107) will not be used? Other businesses will not be counted as cooperative (Q4539). For now I see only problems in this proposal, which reflects my vote. But maybe by segmenting more, you'll be able to change my mind. Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Eihel:You are right to pint out, that the proposal should be changed and the property should always point to the most generic class of products which store typically sells. I.e. insted of pointing to "water", "juice" it should point to "nonalcoholic drinks". What would be the best place to put it in the proposal? I see no field for description. Can you advise for that? Gorn (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I understand that there are few cornercases, like universal stores which sell lots of things, however the primary purpose of this proposal was to enable computers to parse exactly the information whih is obvious for you in labels. As I think about it - wikidata is NOT primarily for humans, but for machines, to be able to understand the structure of things and leverage that knowledge in some services for real people. Currently there is NO WAY to write a simple script which would tell me that a Bike store sells bikes and book store sells books. Or is there? How you would write such a script? (Please give me just idea, I do not need any details of code). There are about 150 types of shops in wikidata and maybe 10 of them are conrercases, other are rather obvious (for human, not for machine and that is exacly the point) Gorn (talk) 10:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I have changed the proposal and added the comment - that the property is not primarity meant for universal shops like supermarket, where lots of things can be bought. Gorn (talk)
    A core point about structured data is that machines should be able to understand what an item is about without having to read the label and understand the English language. To me it seems that there's a relationship between the term "bike shop" and "bike" that's worthy to be expressed in a structured manner but improve on the "bike shop" item. ChristianKl❫ 16:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    Just to ad detail to previous reasoning, the page [Help:About_data] explains this as well saying "The data model also essentially translates human natural language patterns into something that can be processed by machines." They also give an example which is explaining why translatig a sentence "Bike shop is a shop selling bikes" to Wikidata is important. Gorn (talk) 22:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
    Yes, as there is a relation between a grocery store and "a lot of things". In addition, one grocery store will not be equal to another. You stay only at your bike shop or bookstore, I understood, but see beyond. I gave an explanation which deserves more than this response. —Eihel (talk) 04:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    I have a reply for you convenience store (Q7361709) or grocery store (Q1295201) (to merge perhaps) → P_sells → salt, pepper, slipper, cheese, milk, bread, drinks, yoghurt, tissue, chocolate, candy, coffee, condiment, banana, Apple, perry, detergent, frozen, pasta, chips, liqueurs, wine, Juice, flour, sugar, beer, vegetables, toothpick, sponge, cigarettes, rice, etc. and speaks only of goods. no services. —Eihel (talk) 04:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Eihel: Following your advise, I have made it clear in proposal, that it does not apply to these universal shops. Gorn (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
    @Eihel: Could you let me know whether I have sufficiently adressed your concerns by specifically rule out dubious cases you are mentioning, or whether you remain opposed to the proposal? Is so, please can you elaborate what are the most important issues, so we can deal with them? --Gorn (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think the allowed values should be changed from "Q instance of goods goods (Q28877)" to "Q subclasses of goods goods (Q28877), never some specific brand". Further, the number of allowed values per item should be limited. Maybe 1 or just a few. I don't think including services should be much of an issue. --- Jura 17:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: I implemented your suggestion about subclasses. I would love to include services as well, but I feel that it woul stop the property from beeing aprooved as it would complicate it even more. Gorn (talk) 11:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Extend product or material produced (P1056) to cover this -- product or material produced or sold, or just "product" for short. Jheald (talk) 21:45, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jheald: A "bike factory" produces bikes but a "bike shop" doesn't produce them. I feel like it would be worthwhile to be able to access that information in a structured form. ChristianKl❫ 15:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @ChristianKl: In both cases the product is bikes. The "bike shop" is identified as a shop by being an instance of some subclass of shop. Jheald (talk) 19:57, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I would be grateful if more experienced wikidata users give advice on this - is such generalization ususl and wanted. How you would redefine the inverse poperty manufacturer (P176) ? Would you redefine it as "Manufacturer or seller"? How would you change the definition of Wikidata property related to processes and manufacturing (Q51122921)? "Wikidata property related to processes and manufacturing or selling"? It seems to me that you would have to do much more changes if you want to go this way and it is unclear to me if uts benefits justify that. What is your opinion? Gorn (talk) 22:22, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Also please note that currently this proposal can NOT simply be generalized to be covered by manufacturer (P176), beacause it does NOT cover individual shops, but types of shops. Gorn (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
      As to your second point, the Wikidata way is not to have lots of hyper-narrow properties, a different one for each particular narrow class of things. Wikidata aims to have as few properties as required, each as broad as possible, and as orthogonal as possible. If you want to distinguish individual shops from types of shops, that is a role for the relevant P31 statement, not something to be achieved by trying to create a hyper-specialist property or vocabulary of properties for a particularly narrow class of items. Jheald (talk) 10:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @Jheald: If I get you right, than you suggest to broaden the proposal to individual shops as well? I have changed the name of proposal to "typicelly sells" following the suggestion of SilentSpike. Should this be reverted?
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Good first proposal. I definitely think Wikidata is missing a property here, but we should first clarify how to handle types of store which do not sell a specific good (e.g. any subclass of grocery store (Q1295201)). Perhaps items are needed to represent categories of goods (e.g. "household supplies")? Beyond that there's also the issue that an instance of a type of shop may not sell all of the items captured in this property - so perhaps it should be renamed to "typically sells". --SilentSpike (talk) 10:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    Uh. So on 175 "stores" proposed, how much of Item will it stay? I hope there will be at least 100 left (asked for a property proposal). —Eihel (talk) 10:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
    • @SilentSpike: I have implemented your subbestion and renamed the proposal to "typically sells". It is however in conflict with thoughts of Jheald who apparently suggest to broaden it to specific shops as well. Gorn (talk) 12:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have started to look at all 175 types of shops currently available and it is really interesting. First of all I am optimistic - there are many types which will be really very suitable for new property, selling very specific product. I did not found another problematic shop other than the ones already discussed - services and universal shops, however they are not prevailing. There will be easily more than 100 shops to which this property can be applied (I will list some of them as example at the chapter "Examples"). In the process of browsing I have found that the hierarchy under shops really needs some work itself. Until now I have located three classes, which were doubled (like "florist" and "flower shop" - I am merging these) and some suspicious classes like ironing shop (Q2037707) which I am leaving alone now, but they might need to be moved lower in the hierarchy of shops. Gorn (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Thanks Gorn for getting into such detail here; I now agree this will be a useful property to link items that may otherwise be hard to relate automatically. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support With the name change I support this property. On the point of whether the domain should be broadened to work on specific organisations/instances I am unsure. I think they are two separate domains - "type of store" (class) and "specific store" (instance) - because their relation to a given product is different (e.g. you could say department stores typically sell clothes, but it is not guaranteed, whereas you would say a specific department store does/doesn't sell clothes with certainty). However, it's possible the property could be used in such a way that when applied to each of those domains it implies that slightly different meaning. --SilentSpike (talk) 10:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support amended proposal --- Jura 14:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ChristianKl, Gorn, Thierry Caro, ArthurPSmith, SilentSpike: @Eihel, Jheald, Jura1: ✓ Done: typically sells (P7163). − Pintoch (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)