Wikidata:Property proposal/fails compliance with

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Fails compliance with[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Under discussion
Descriptionfails compliance of the test defined in the associated item
Data typeItem
Example 1Hackers (Q13908) → "fails compliance with" → Bechdel test (Q4165246)
Example 2instant-runoff voting (Q1491219) → "fails compliance with" → monotonicity criterion (Q6902035)
Example 3Copeland's method (Q5168347) → "fails compliance with" → independence of irrelevant alternatives (Q3150644)


We need the opposite of complies with (P5009) to state when an item doesn't comply with the criterion associated with an item. For example:

Could someone create a "fails compliance with" property? -- RobLa (talk) 02:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


Summary of Wikidata:Project_chat conversation so far: this is what was discussed so far over at Wikidata:Project_chat as part of the "Reasonably quick way to resolve 'non-compliance property' issue?" topic. User:Jura1 suggests modeling this after test taken (P5021) and test score (P5022), allowing us to specify degrees of compliance. User:Ghouston suggests instead that we can add qualifiers to this new property if we need to move beyond binary compliance/non-compliance. User:Ls1g suggests a change to the data model to allow statements which negate any existing property, and links to this paper: "Negative Statements Considered Useful" - Hiba Arnaout, Simon Razniewski, and Gerhard Weikum. I'd prefer taking User:Ghouston's approach as I understand it. -- RobLa (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

  • @Jura1:, can you give details of how you think it should be done? You want to replace complies with (P5009) with a new property, such that there's only a single property for defining compliance? Then the statement itself would be meaningless without interpreting the qualifiers, which would make it harder to write queries. Ghouston (talk) 09:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I think the explanation on project chat is fairly clear. Please comment there if you think it needs more input. --- Jura 09:58, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
    • @Ghouston:, thank you bringing the conversation to this proposal page. I agree with you that queries seem a lot easier with the addition of "fails compliance with" than queries involving a new regime modeled after test taken (P5021) and test score (P5022). This page seems like a better place to discuss alternatives to "fails compliance with" than the omnibus project chat page. -- RobLa (talk) 18:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jura1: I don't think it's correct to say that compliance is not binary. A voting system either complies with a criterion or it doesn't; there is no in-between. The reason that table has cells other than Yes or No is because it combines closely-related voting systems into the same row, and closely-related criteria into the same column. In other words, some of the rows in that table are actually classes of voting systems rather than instances of voting systems. Omegatron (talk) 18:56, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. There should be a better data model for both this and complies with (P5009) in such cases. Jura1's suggestion looks workable. --Yair rand (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Is there any precedent for a statement that's meaningless without interpreting the qualifiers? I can't think of one, but I don't know them all. It would be like X <compliance> Y. Ghouston (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    @Ghouston: disjoint union of (P2738) only allows list values as qualifiers (Q23766486) as a value. --Yair rand (talk) 22:48, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
    • I don't think it's meaningless. It's like the "test taken" mentioned on Project Chat or "significant event". We know that's a valid criterion/test/event for the item, we just don't have full details. The approach seems more suitable for non-binary content like the voting systems description that is planned.
      Also, I don't get why Bechtel test is mentioned. It isn't even used with the other property. --- Jura 23:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)