Wikidata:Property proposal/imprimatur

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

imprimatur[edit]

Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Ready Create
Descriptionperson or organization authorizing publication of the book
Representsimprimatur (Q955005)
Data typeItem
Domainbooks
Allowed valuesitems for persons or organizations
Example 1Catholic Encyclopedia (Q302556)John Murphy Farley (Q547365)
Example 2Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Q205921)Samuel Pepys (Q106143)
Example 3The Story of a Soul (Q3136640)Flavien Hugonin (Q1427473)
Planned useadd to some applicable works

Motivation[edit]

For historic works .. --- Jura 11:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Ayack (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support: again, useful. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2019 (UTC).
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support NMaia (talk) 21:44, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Trade (talk) 21:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulphere 16:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Yair rand: do you have any objection or you are going to "oppose" this proposal? Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 08:42, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think what he may have meant is that even if there are no open issues to be addressed and there is a consensus for its creation, the property shouldn't be created before a week has passed, i.e. later today, not yesterday. --- Jura 09:37, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
    Precisely. The minimum is seven days. (I've proposed making the minimum longer. This property proposal was closed about an hour after it first showed up in the weekly summary, which makes people missing it rather likely.) --Yair rand (talk) 02:06, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I have marked this as ready --DannyS712 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Isn’t there is a confusion between the person who signed the imprimatur here and the organisation he or her belongs to that make this person in position to authorize ? Also, in the current proposal there is no discussion on how to link the work with the place in which it is authorized (I guess an imprimatur in France was not automatically valid in England, for example). Is it assumed this is an imprimatur for an edition of a work ? author  TomT0m / talk page 13:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
    • "object has role"-qualifier can be used to specify the position of the person. The property should be used as in the samples given above. --- Jura 15:47, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
      • In any case, it seems that, according to enwiki : « The imprimatur granted for a publication is not valid for later editions of the same work or for translations into another language. For these, new imprimaturs are required.[8] ». So should it be assumed that the « imprimatur » property means by default « person who signed the imprimatur of the first edition » ? Maybe « imprimatur signed by » as a name ? applies to jurisdiction (P1001) should also be allowed as a qualifier). author  TomT0m / talk page 16:21, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
        • I don't see an ambiguity in the way the sample uses the property. If someone attempts to use it the wrong way round, the description and constraints should take care of it. --- Jura 06:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
          • It’s not really to resolve an ambiguity, it’s to be consistent with the definition of an imprimatur : an authorisation. Compare to a licence for example. If we name a property « licence », the object would not really be the person who signed but the kind of licence. author  TomT0m / talk page 07:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
            • Maybe. OTH, we don't use "signatory signed by" either. --- Jura 07:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
              • In my model below, « signatory » would be « decider » actually. So indeed this does not make any sense. It’s not supposed to. author  TomT0m / talk page 10:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment just for the exercise, I wondered how we could model the rejection of an imprimatur. A solution could be a slighly different model : considering the act of authorisation (or a document symbolising this, like a contract) is the real object of the « imprimimatur » statements. Then unknown value Help (or a concrete item) could mean « the authorisation is granted », no value Help could mean « the authorisation has been rejected, and to express the person in charge of taking the decision claims could be qualified by something as « decider ». An example with « no value » would be
    < Mercier’s cardinal pastoral letter > imprimatur search no value Help
    decider search < Alberto Leipidi >
    [1]. The first example would become, in this model,
    < Catholic Encyclopedia (Q302556) > imprimatur search unknown value Help
    decider search < John Murphy Farley (Q547365) >
    (some value because we don’t have an item for the actual imprimatur document, and we don’t need to, but it exists). The usefulness would be that if an imprimatur was actually rejected for a publication, « decider » could still be used as a qualifier to express who exactly rejected. author  TomT0m / talk page 16:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC) (EDITED)
  1. https://books.google.fr/books?id=yfOBDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT62&dq=lui+refuse+l%27imprimatur&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwismNPeiq_jAhUNmxQKHTYSDOoQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=lui%20refuse%20l'imprimatur&f=false
    • If there is no valid sample, it's hard to discuss and probably not even in scope of www.wikidata.org . If it's rare, we probably don't want to create a property around it. --- Jura 10:15, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, if the imprimatur was systematically granted at times it’s of really limited interest. There is probably more value to know stuff which was not authorized for printing and why than the opposite. Otherwise. author  TomT0m / talk page 11:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
        • There are many statements on items for printed works, some more interesting than others. --- Jura 18:12, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I have a concern about this itenm from a different perspective. imprimatur (Q955005) is a <subclass of> "consent" - it is the statement or declaration itself, not the person or organization issuing the statement. The label ought to be something like "imprimitur granted by". - PKM (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
    • imprimatur (Q955005) is somewhat suboptimal. Anyways, this should be a property, not an item. I suppose we will see if the label is problematic or not. --- Jura 21:01, 12 July 2019 (UTC)