Wikidata:Property proposal/abstract available at

Not done

Description	URL where an abstract of the full work is available
Represents	abstract (Q333291)
Data type	URL
Domain	works
Allowed values	valid URLs
Example	Arizonacritus talayesvai, nouveau genre et nouvelle espèce des Etats-Unis d'Amérique et du Mexique (Coleoptera, Histeridae) (Q47451110) → http://www.refdoc.fr/Detailnotice?idarticle=55144325
See also	full work available at URL (P953)

Needed for WikiCite, especially when full works are not (freely) available online - I was surprised to find we don't already have this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support David (talk) 15:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why not use described at URL (P973)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Insufficiently precise - that might also be used for a review, or a refutation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uomovariabile (talk to me) 08:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose described at URL (P973) seems appropriate − Pintoch (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please see my comment, above, explaining why it is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Changing to oppose so that we have more time to discuss. Why not use a qualifier on described at URL (P973) to indicate which information is available at the URL? That would be more generic. − Pintoch (talk) 13:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Such as? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:53, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Something like this:

edit

0 references

add reference

add value

@Pintoch: Looks like shoehorsing to me. It’s not a description of the abstract that is available at the url, it’s the integral abstract of the article ??? author TomT0m / talk page 13:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @TomT0m: Then with full work available at URL (P953) instead of described at URL (P973)? − Pintoch (talk) 13:30, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don’t really like the idea that we get a « part » qualifier on a property supposed to get the full version as a subject … utterly confusing.
    ⟨ subject ⟩ has part(s) of the class (P2670) ⟨ abstract ⟩
    full work available at URL (P953) ⟨ the url ⟩
    would maybe work, but I’d prefer a dedicated property. author TomT0m / talk page 13:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support useful. author TomT0m / talk page 13:36, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was thinking more along the lines of
⟨ subject ⟩ described at URL (P973) ⟨ the url ⟩
object has role (P3831) ⟨ abstract ⟩

An abstract is almost by definition a "description" of the associated paper, so described at url seems near-perfect here to me. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me. What do others think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yeah, I never think about object has role (P3831). Yes I think that would work very well. − Pintoch (talk) 07:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably less intuitive for a manual entry but it can work.--Uomovariabile (talk to me) 09:30, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Closing this as

Not done then. − Pintoch (talk) 17:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation menu