Wikidata:Property proposal/catalogue raisonné

catalogue raisonné

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Done: critical catalogue (P9969) (Talk and documentation)

Description	a catalogue raisonné for an artist
Represents	catalogue raisonné (Q1050259)
Data type	Item
Allowed units	artists
Example 1	Lucas Cranach the Elder (Q191748) → Die Gemälde von Lucas Cranach FR 1932 (Q64937617)
Example 2	Vincent van Gogh (Q5582) → L'Œuvre de Vincent van Gogh: catalogue raisonné (Q17280421)
Example 3	Paul Cézanne (Q35548) → The Paintings, Watercolors and Drawings of Paul Cezanne: An Online Catalogue Raisonné (Q63489514)
Example 4	Piet Mondrian (Q151803) → Piet Mondrian: Catalogue Raisonné (Q50383647)

Motivation

very useful to combine information to the artist's work Oursana (talk) 10:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

• It looks like you want "item" datatype here? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Support David (talk) 06:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Hi Oursana; shouldn't we broaden the proposal to all types of work's comprehensive lists (like full publications lists)? I would love to have such a tool for researchers, for instance... Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:34, 2 July 2019 (UTC).
  • Many thanks to @ArthurPSmith:

@Nomen ad hoc: I am not quite sure, if I got you right,perhaps you could give an example. The Werkverzeichnis is a very special list, the list for the artist's work, with a great authority.--Oursana (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Support - and with a separate field in the artwork template on Wikimedia Commons --Trzęsacz (talk) 21:09, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Question Is there a particular advantage to creating this property for use on the artist's item, over the existing pattern of using instance of (P31) = catalogue raisonné (Q1050259) / main subject (P921) = <artist> on the item for the catalogue? Usually we prefer properties in the direction that connects many items to one, rather than one item to many. Jheald (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jheald::Yes, you can see immediately which is/or are the catalogue raisonné (Q1050259) for this artist, to get information about this work.

--Oursana (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Comment I agree with Jheald here - the direction of this property feels wrong to me. Is there not a risk that a given item could have a lot of statements for this property? Marking as not ready. − Pintoch (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
  • one item to many?? I do not understand the arguments of Jheald and Pintoch. Could you please give an example and explain. There are very few Werkverzeichnis, normally none to one, maximum very seldom 3--Oursana (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
    • By one item to many we mean that it would be more natural to add a statement in the other direction, from each "catalogue raisonné" to its subject. The many in this phrase does not mean that there would be too many links to do it in the other direction, it is just a description of the relation (see en:One-to-many (data model) ). − Pintoch (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
      • I'm neutral on this one. I'm quite reluctant about creating one to many properties, in this case one person with multiple catalogue raisonnées, but what would be the maximum here? What artist has more than 10 of them? Maybe Rembrandt (Q5598)? @Jane023: as our catalog queen, what do you think? Multichill (talk) 09:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
        • Thanks for the ping. Though I am all for more catalogs raisonné on Wikidata for artists, the catalogue raisonné (Q1050259) is currently also in use for all sorts of things, not just "all works by artists", but also "all items in collection". That said, yes it would be nice to have a link from the artist to an item about their most notable (or only!) monograph. But the problem here is exactly the same as the one for the "Notable print" proposal for paintings that I had before. Who is to say that the notable print is indeed notable? Is it notable because it made the painting famous? Or is it notable because it was copied by a notable painter? Or was it made when the painting was in an important collection? Though valid, those questions don't even come near the crux of the matter which is that the print (or catalog in this case) has a specific instance as an edition. Do we want all editions and/or translations? I think not. The way to handle the problem this proposal tries to address is to try and address the issue of having a "reasonator-like link" on the artist page that will point the reader to all Wikidata resources available, such as the creator lists of course, but also (and not limited to) the catalog raisonné listeria list (if it exists). Signed, the catalog queen! Jane023 (talk) 10:18, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Oppose Use the model suggested by User:Jheald, with a "...has role" qualifier; like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
•  Comment Perhaps we can use described by source (P1343) qualified with type of reference (P3865) (or "object has role" as suggested above)? - PKM (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Oppose While I like the idea, we circumvent the authority problem with using it the other way around. And in the long term we will have several catalogue raisonnés. It would be great if we can show in the future the inverse relation items in a structured manner. --Hannolans (talk) 21:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I am novice here, but inverse relations sounds like Boolean logic, whereas Not, Nand, Nor are attached to inputs as well as outputs. I know this is a long shot here, but I refer to US Military Training, Electronics. Computer (1972), Paptilian (talk) 19:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
•  Weak oppose It is true that the model suggested by Jheald should be enough and I am generally against creating needless "inverse properties". However I sympathise very much with the proposal as there is currently (AFAIK) no way to display all catalogues raisonné for an artist on Wikimedia Commons if the catalogue is only linked from the catalogue's side and not vice versa.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
  • That is an interesting comment. I suppose I never thought about it in terms of Commons before. I assume you are talking about the creator template? If so, the number of catalogs for Rembrandt (Q5598) would definitely make the artwork template on his Commons paintings look pretty weird if you uncollapse it. It might be better to have it in Category infobox. Since you could easily infer it (see methods explained above), maybe @Mike Peel: could think of a way to show it? Having such functionality could possibly be a justification for having creator categories on Commons that are otherwise empty (due to copyright reasons). Jane023 (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jane023: Sorry for the slow reply to your ping. I don't know of any way to do this without having the inverse property, so I've !voted support below. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
•  Support Inverse properties are necessary to display the information in infoboxes (which can't do sparql queries to find the reverse links). In this case the property would be very useful for Commons categories about artists. @Jheald, Pintoch, Pigsonthewing, PKM, Hannolans, Vojtěch Dostál: I would encourage you to reconsider your oppose votes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: Off topic: Would you be able to formulate this weakness of Wikidata at Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Wikidata? I think this is a highly needed feature - getting data "from the other side". But I find myself unable to properly explain what would be needed.Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 20:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
    • @Vojtěch Dostál: I've already been told off for submitting a 4th wish there. ;-) If you want to submit this, I'd be happy to support and comment, but I think it's a tricky problem to solve. I think you want a Lua call that can return the results from a query, or return the list of other items that link to the item in question, @RexxS: would know better than I. Both are probably expensive queries anyway, and we're already running into performance issues with Lua and Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
      • @Mike Peel: Hmm, maybe it's already there: meta:Community_Wishlist_Survey_2021/Wikidata#Allow_access_to_some_inverse_statements_through_Lua_and_parser_functions... Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 20:20, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
•  Support UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 07:18, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
•  Support the commons infobox rationale is convincing to me. I don't think there is much danger of overloading the artists' items, and in fact casual readers will probably appreciate the link from the artists' end. --99of9 (talk) 12:39, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
• @Oursana, ArthurPSmith, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Nomen ad hoc, 99of9, Vojtěch Dostál: @Mike Peel, Jheald, Pintoch, Pigsonthewing, PKM, Hannolans: @Jane023, Paptilian, Multichill, Trzęsacz:  Done as critical catalogue (P9969). --UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2021 (UTC)