Wikidata:Property proposal/applies to form or aspect

applies to form or aspect (qualifier only)

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	form or aspect of an item to which the statement applies
Data type	Item
Example 1	Republic of Venice (Q4948)demonym (P1549)veneciano (Spanish)applies to form or aspectmasculine singular (Q47088290) (masculine singular (Q47088290) is a form of the demonym (Q217438))
Example 2	water (Q283)color (P462)white (Q23444)applies to form or aspectice (Q23392) (ice (Q23392) is a form of water (Q283))
Example 3	motherboard (Q4321)has part(s) (P527)central processing unit (Q5300)applies to form or aspectsingle-board computer (Q944780) (single-board computer (Q944780) is a form of motherboard (Q4321))
Example 4	oxygen (Q629)radius (P2120)60 picometreapplies to form or aspectatomic radius (Q483788) (atomic radius (Q483788) is an aspect of oxygen (Q629))
Example 5	52-hertz whale (Q452)frequency (P2144)52 hertzapplies to form or aspectanimal communication (Q1434121) (animal communication (Q1434121) is an aspect of the 52-hertz whale (Q452))
Example 6	Sistine Chapel (Q2943)creator (P170)Baccio Pontelli (Q576325)applies to form or aspectdesign (Q82604) (design (Q82604) is the aspect of Sistine Chapel (Q2943) that Baccio Pontelli (Q576325) contributed)
Planned use	migration of appropriate statements from applies to part (P518)
See also	applies to part (P518) (see motivation)

Motivation

There are many other examples of the types represented above, particularly the first. Currently, these cases mostly use applies to part (P518), and while its aliases reflect that (in English at least), many of its labels and descriptions do not. I recently tried to change the English label to reflect the full scope of use, and was reverted on the basis that the broader definition was too imprecise. But as it stands, applies to part (P518) is used in many statements where its current label(s) are not accurate. So as I see it, we need to either:

1. Achieve a consensus that applies to part (P518) is the right property for these statements, and that its labels and descriptions should be expanded accordingly, OR;
2. Create this proposed property to absorb the cases that are outside the scope of applies to part (P518), and narrow down the latter's aliases, labels, and descriptions in all languages to reflect it's narrower scope.

I don't have a strong preference between these options, but it seems clear to me that one of them must happen.

As the proposed property is essentially a split from applies to part (P518), there are many statements ready to be switched to the new property immediately, although it may not be trivial to identify them all. Swpb (talk) 19:35, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

@Swpb: There's an issue here: does the qualification apply to the subject of the original statement, or to its object? (Or indeed to the property relation). Using the same qualifier for all three requires human 'common-sense' knowledge to be brought to the statement for the meaning to be interpret. That's why subject has role (P2868) and object has role (P3831) (the latter in fact proposed by you) are available to clarify the distinct role that the subject or object are playing in the main statement, which seems quite close to what you are seeking here (particularly "applies to aspect"). So for the Sistine Chapel example, using object has role (P3831) = "designer" would be the way that creator (P170) or contributor to the creative work or subject (P767) tend to be qualified at the moment (allowing values like draughtsman, cartographer, etcher, engraver, etc to be captured from catalogue sources). Also, the oxygen example criterion used (P1013) or determination method (P459) would seem more specific. So I think the first way forward here might be to widen the understanding of subject has role (P2868) and object has role (P3831) to cover "subject/object has role or form", and then to ask whether there are any cases remaining that would still not be well treated. Jheald (talk) 10:44, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jheald: applies to part (P518) is also ambiguous in this way (subject/object referent); if separation is needed (and I agree that it is), shouldn't we split applies to part (P518) as well? To me, adding "or form" to subject has role (P2868)/object has role (P3831) seems at least as significant an expansion as adding "form" or "aspect" to applies to part (P518), and would lead to some awkward expressions: how would you handle my example 5, for example? 52-hertz whale (Q452)frequency (P2144)52 hertzobject has role or formanimal communication (Q1434121)? To me, that seems as clear as mud. TO me, "aspect" and "part" seem closely related, "form" a little less so, and "role" least related of all. It seems like maximum clarity would call for six properties:

1. applies to part or aspect of subject
2. applies to part or aspect of object
3. applies to form of subject
4. applies to form of object
5. subject has role (P2868)
6. object has role (P3831)

What do you think? Swpb (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Failed to generate any support; feel free to re-open if/when there is consensus among multiple editors for it. JesseW (talk) 18:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)