Wikidata:Property proposal/change of

change of

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	property this process changes
Data type	Item
Domain	process
Example 1	sea level rise (Q841083)change ofsea level (Q125465)
Example 2	heating (Q4311765)change oftemperature (Q11466)
Example 3	human ageing (Q116142766)change ofage of a person (Q185836)

Motivation

This relationship is currently modeled with of (P642) which we are trying to remove. Lectrician1 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

@User:SM5POR @Swpb, @Push-f WikiProject Properties has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. Lectrician1 (talk) 23:28, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

 Comment ( Support) Is this a main statement property or a qualifier? I see heating (Q4311765)subclass of (P279)increase (Q9073584)of (P642)temperature (Q11466), so I'm wondering if we can specify increase/decrease. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wd-Ryan Main statement. For specifying the direction of change (increase or decrease) we can use P31 for now, though I may propose another property in the future. Lectrician1 (talk) 21:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

instance of (P31) as a qualifier to this? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:00, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wd-Ryan No. Like it could be modelled as (these are main statements):

sea level riseinstance ofincrease

sea level risechange ofsea level

OR, if I proposed a new property "direction of change" it could be:

sea level riseinstance ofprocess

sea level risechange ofsea level

sea level risedirection of changeincrease Lectrician1 (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you mean subclass of (P279)? That's what they currently use, and they wouldn't be instances. Nonetheless,  Support. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 16:35, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

uhh yeah it should be subclass of (P279) Lectrician1 (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The description should avoid the term property as it's easily confused with the normal meaning of property within Wikidata.

I think I would prefer "is change of" as the name for this property.

"direction of change" sounds a bit to narrow and it would be worth seeing whether we can find a qualifier for "change of" that can specify the qualities of the change. In addition to increase/decrease the quality might also be fast/slow and likely others as well.

human ageing (Q332154) is not defined to be human specific and thus age of a person (Q185836) would be wrong here. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 15:01, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@ChristianKl The item itself is the change though. For that reason we would use a main statement to describe its direction, not a qualifier. Also, ageing is human-specific. Look at the sitelinked Wikipedia article. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

The sitelinked Wikipedia article does not specify the meaning of the Wikidata article. A meaning of a Wikidata item is specified by it's statements. Changing the meaning of structured data items by adding something like "it applies to humans" in the description when it's something that's likely be currently used by data users for non-human uses is pretty messy.

It also conflicts with statements that the item currently has which explicitely link it to be exact matches of the concept that's applies to non-human organisms as well. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's unclear to me what's special about direction here that would warrent a qualifier that's specialized to this single use case that's about direction. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@ChristianKl fixed it to "human ageing". Lectrician1 (talk) 21:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

@ChristianKl Would you support if I rename it to "is change of"? Lectrician1 (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@ChristianKl:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the response Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:39, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Not done no support for creation --DannyS712 (talk) 01:22, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  I supported. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 01:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Closed, no concensus since 20 January 2023. Midleading (talk) 04:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Midleading What do you mean, there's literally one support vote and one comment. Lectrician1 (talk) 07:07, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  It's a negative comment that doesn't seem addressed. Midleading (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  It has been addressed above now. Lectrician1 (talk) 04:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

•  Oppose Although I support reducing the use of "of", I think it should be done systematically with an eye to carving off the biggest use cases first. This proposal captures subclasses of "increase" and "decrease" and a few more, but when I query for subclasses of "increase", I don't get many: [1] (even if you switch this to a recursive search, it only ends up with 944, not all trustworthy). --99of9 (talk) 02:51, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

  @99of9 How else are we supposed to model this relationship without using of (P642)? Lectrician1 (talk) 21:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

   Comment Could object of action potentially be used as a qualifier to heating (Q4311765)subclass of (P279)increase (Q9073584)? Or is that strictly for manual actions? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:37, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  Wikidata:Property proposal/object of action is not meant to be used as a qualifier. It's meant to describe actions by agents, not natural changes to objects. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not saying we can yet (other than using "of" for the time being, which works). But in terms of replacing of, I think we should hit the biggest chunks systematically first. This chunk will then hopefully fit into one of the others. For example, on this page Wikidata:WikiProject_Data_Quality/Issues/P642, perhaps "change of" is part of COD9 #6 "direction", so once that is captured, this might follow. --99of9 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

  @99of9 It still doesn't seem reasonable to me that you would oppose something just because it's "not doing a lot". It's at least doing something... Every little step towards getting rid of of (P642) is a needed one. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:16, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  I can understand that perspective. It may turn out that my caution is unnecessary or unreasonable. But isn't it possible that if this one is approved, then writing a general one for COD9#6 will become harder, because we'll either have to avoid this one or deprecate this one? --99of9 (talk) 05:51, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

  @99of9 Having specific properties is better than having general ones? Then it makes querying easier and property less prone to incorrect usage. This is a very clear property to use and I can't see why we wouldn't want this. Lectrician1 (talk) 00:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Support: It could be used to model displacement, as change of position; synonyms: modifies, transforms. It'd be useful to have also "rate of change of", to model velocity, as rate of change of position. Currently we only have "facet of", which is very broad. Fgnievinski (talk) 07:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

This exact concept is called "change of a quantity" as documented in Q103856215 and in external source [2]. The other related proposed property is called "rate of change of a quantity" (Q103864282)[3]. Fgnievinski (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

•  Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:39, 19 April 2024 (UTC)