Wikidata:Property proposal/does not have part

does not have part

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Done: does not have part (P3113) (Talk and documentation)

Description	Inverse (for want of a better word) of has part(s) (P527). Use to claim what the item does not have, limited to things which would often be expected to be present. For example, a historic building which "does not have part" roof (Q83180).
Data type	Item
Example	Franklin County State Airport (Q5491432) => control tower (Q918324) arm (Q43471) => hand (Q33767)
Source	For the example above: FSO (KFSO)
Planned use	Can be used to indicate that an airport does not have a control tower (as recorded by the FAA), or does not have a heliport. Plus many other possibilities.
Robot and gadget jobs	Possibly bots, or batch jobs, could harvest certain information from external sources.
See also	has part(s) (P527)

Motivation

What an item does not have, can be just as important as what it does have. Danrok (talk) 14:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support. I can see this as part of a family of negative statements (better name perhaps neeed) along with "except", "does not apply to" and possibly other similar constructions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• Re the description, that's not what "inverse" means. --Yair rand (talk) 18:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
• To be useful, it has to have a reasonable usage, we have no use for statements like "Albert Einstein" does not have part:"Trunk". -- Innocent bystander (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Indeed, it's right there in the description "limited to things which would often be expected to be present". Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, but the proposal also has a strange example: "does not have part:helipad". Most airport I have visited (and that is maybe not so many) does not have a helipad. I have probably visited more hospitals with a helipad than airports. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 12:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
      • An airport without a helipad may possibly still be used by helicopters. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
        • I changed the wording to heliport, which seems to be the correct term. Its just something which is specified in the aviation authority's description of an airport. No heliport means there are no specific landing facilities for helicopters. They may still be able to land. Danrok (talk) 11:15, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support this sounds good to me. Note this is not the usual meaning of "inverse" with regard to properties - it is more a negation rather than an inverse. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:23, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Support -- Innocent bystander (talk) 07:47, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose, at least until this is discussed more. For example, if a building has no roof, does that mean it was removed by design, destroyed (maybe the building is a ruin; maybe it is in use and awaiting repair), or it never had one? In at least two of these cases, it had a roof, whose absence should be indicated by an end-date qualifier (and probably a cause). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

If a building did have a roof, and it was destroyed at some point, then we would claim has part(s) (P527) = roof along with end time (P582) = date the roof was destroyed. Danrok (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

• Would not {{Hold}} be more sufficient then? I fully agree that this need a Deep Thought (Q23016450). -- Innocent bystander (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  Possibly a "reason for absence" or simply has cause (P828) qualifier would be the best way to model that, e.g.

  ⟨ Temple Church (Q1253118)    ⟩ does not have part (P3113) ⟨ roof ⟩
  has cause (P828) ⟨ Bristol Blitz (Q4968807)    ⟩

  . Thryduulf (talk) 19:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Support. Even though I would stress more on the fact that this should be used for things that are actually widely expected. Thierry Caro (talk) 08:48, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, although that already applies to plenty of other generic properties. For example, we don't normally claim that buildings has part(s) (P527) = nail, door hinge, etc. An amount of common sense has to be used. Danrok (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Support I think it's quite useful and I added an example from anatomy where it's quite useful to specify arm (Q43471) => hand (Q33767). ChristianKl (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

 Question I wonder how to model that somethings has no more one of its expected part (considering its type) wrt. model that something never had it.

Also an alternative should be to use quantity (P1114) with a zero value. author  TomT0m / talk page 13:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

TomT0m has a point! Captain Hook (Q1035128) has part hands/ quantity (P1114) 1 is also something worth noting. He still have something, not all hands are missing. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

•  Weak support Statistical Classification of Economic Activities in the European Community, Rev. 2 (2008) (Q732298) and Russian Economic Activities Classification System (Q19192441) have extended description for some items, which in addition to a name and simple list of subitems, contains lists "This group includes: " and "This group does not include: " (pointing to in which other items the things are included instead). Example (NACE v1.1): 15.84 Manufacture of cocoa; chocolate and sugar confectionery. …includes: (examples of products which do not seem to be sugars themselves), …excludes: – production of sucrose sugar, see 15.83). This property could help against adding erroneous subclass of (P279) in such cases. --AVRS (talk) 09:28, 25 August 2016 (UTC) --AVRS (talk) 09:09, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
• @Danrok, Thryduulf, Innocent bystander, Thierry Caro, AVRS, ArthurPSmith:  Done ChristianKl (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2016 (UTC)