this value is more specific than that of the parent (super)class or broader class; the parent (super)class or broader class has the same property statement, and the relation between this value and the value in the superclass is subclass of (P279) (To be used in a source field)
this value is more specific than that of the parent (super)class or broader class; the parent (super)class or broader class has the same property statement, and the relation between this value and the value in the superclass is part of (P361) (To be used in a source field)
In many cases, there are similar tree structures among parallel concepts. These proposed qualifiers are useful to explicitly clarify these relationships, and to check if the relation is broken. See also Wikidata:Property proposal/value is inherited from.
Comment I don't see how this adds value to wikidata - it looks like a duplication of information which can be derived from the relationships on the values of these statements. Or maybe I'm missing something here? It seems at the least a confusing way to go about this... ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By doing so, we can explicitly declare the detailed relationships between the subject class and its superclasses, i.e. everyone can understand why respiratory system cancer (Q7315926) is a broader concepts than lung cancer (Q47912).
Of course if the data are complete, this information can be automatically generated. But practically, data are sometimes missed or changed mistakenly. We can detect not only ①mistakenly removing or changing of P279 claims in the subject class, but also ② mistakenly removing or changing of some inherited values in the superclass, by using these qualifiers. When editing in the superclass, we sometimes fail to notice the existence of subclasses, and in order to resolve interwiki conflicts or to fix the wrong external IDs, we would change some values. These qualifiers prevent us from causing mismatching in P279 claims in the subclasses.
However, we must beware that any bot should not automatically change these qualifiers according to the changes in the superclass. --Okkn (talk) 06:02, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I believe these qualifiers are necessary to actualize high robustness of data and their structures. That is particularly vital for healthcare information, I think. --Okkn (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My first impression also is that it looks complicated, and does not seem to be adding new information. It may help in adding robustness, but I can't really say if this would be worth it. Would this be used as a qualifier? - Brya (talk) 04:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya: Yes, they would be used as qualifiers. Not only robustness but also the notation of value inheritance (where the value is inherited from, or how the value is updated from superclass), would be added. --Okkn (talk) 06:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
, we cannot distinguish, what is called, "value is inherited from", "value is subclass of that of", and "value is part of that of" relations. (see Figure)
I don't see how adding to "anatomical location : mitral valve" a qualifier of "subclass of : heart valve" is less specific or informative than adding to "anatomical location : mitral valve" a qualifier of "value is more specific than : heart valve"? - Brya (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Brya: My plan is adding a qualifier of "value is more specific than that of : heart valve disease", not "heart valve". A qualifier of "subclass of : heart valve" in P927 claim does not mean that "heart valve" is used in the superclass ("heart valve disease"). The proposed qualifier suggests not only that "mitral valve" has a superclass, but also that the superclass of "mitral valve" is inherited from "heart valve disease". The latter information is the most important point of this qualifier. When an item has mulitple superclasses, this notation help us to recognize the inheritance relationships. --Okkn (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
⟩ anatomical location (P927) 
Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine: These qualifiers are especially useful to describe medical concepts. --Okkn (talk) 15:10, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
Comment I don't see how this adds value to wikidata - it looks like a duplication of information which can be derived from the relationships on the values of these statements. Or maybe I'm missing something here? It seems at the least a confusing way to go about this... ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject Taxonomy has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
⟩ anatomical location (P927)