Wikidata:Property proposal/fonds
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
fonds[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work
| Represents | fonds (Q3052382) |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Allowed values | fonds (Q3052382) |
| Example 1 | Peterborough Chronicle (Q1242458)fondsLaud fonds (Q122854409) |
| Example 2 | Codex Coislinianus 386 (Q5140196)fondsFonds Coislin (Q5465012) |
| Example 3 | Uncial 054 (Q1798543)fondsBarberini collection (Q122964202) |
| See also | collection (P195), level of description (P6224) |
Motivation[edit]
This property is meant for use on single items (or series of items) belonging to a specific fonds (Q3052382) within a collection (Q2668072). While the examples above are all for manuscripts, it can be used for any kind of item, I just don't have examples at my fingertips. Jonathan Groß (talk) 08:30, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Support (and I think it can be transcluded). --Epìdosis 12:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Archival Description Jonathan Groß (talk) 15:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)- Support Could possibly also be useful for documents or dossiers of a press archives holding (we covered that by partOf - e.g. in British India : Health situation, general (Q92867525)), but for archival purposes, a more precise property seems useful) --Jneubert (talk) 05:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support Might be helpful also to include guidance (description, properties) on when to apply the proposed property in lieu of the existing collection (P195) Heberlei (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Heberlei: Indeed. In the examples cited above, I would use it in addition to collection (P195), not instead of it. While collection (P195) could be inferred from the fonds statement, it could not be done in a Cirrus Search, so I believe this is not a case of data duplication but rather a question of granularity. Jonathan Groß (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonathan Groß: Sounds good to me, thanks! Heberlei (talk) 08:26, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Heberlei: Indeed. In the examples cited above, I would use it in addition to collection (P195), not instead of it. While collection (P195) could be inferred from the fonds statement, it could not be done in a Cirrus Search, so I believe this is not a case of data duplication but rather a question of granularity. Jonathan Groß (talk) 06:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Support An alternative approach is to continue using part of (P361) to denote fond information and using the instance of (P31) information of the value (which is fonds (Q3052382)) to find it. This approach also allows us to access fond information. In biological information, parent taxon (P171) and taxon rank (P105) serve a similar role to this approach. However, I believe that fond is a privileged component in terms of archival science, so it is a good idea to directly denote fond information from items. --KAMEDA, Akihiro (talk) 11:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. In my opionion part of (P361) is too broad and not specific enough for our purposes. Jonathan Groß (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- I just wanted to remind people here of this kind of query(Numbers of items which has inferred fonds info for each fonds). In other words, I support this proposal because fonds is a privileged component, but I won't support if the properties for series or sub-series (cf. values of level of description (P6224)) are suggested in the future. --KAMEDA, Akihiro (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comment. In my opionion part of (P361) is too broad and not specific enough for our purposes. Jonathan Groß (talk) 13:24, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Jonathan Groß, Epìdosis, Jneubert, Heberlei, KAMEDA, Akihiro:
Done: fonds (P12095). Regards Kirilloparma (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
