Wikidata:Property proposal/has member 2
has member
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Motivation
[edit]We have been using has part(s) (P527) to express the inverse of member of (P463), which is not correct since has part(s) (P527) is transitive and member of (P463) is not.
For an example of why membership is not transitive, if musicians are member of (P463) a musical group and the musical group is part of (P361) the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Q179191), the members of the musical group are not part of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (Q179191) because member of (P463) is not transitive.
We should not be using has part(s) (P527) to describe membership because it is ontologically incorrect. We should instead have a new property "has member" that is not transitive to correctly describe a membership relationship.
The 23188 uses of has part(s) (P527) to describe membership would be moved over to this new property.
Although inverse properties a generally discouraged, we should create this property because there are already 10+ musical group Wikipedia templates that use has part(s) (P527) to describe the members of musical groups and a replacement property is needed.
Discussion
[edit]@User:Moebeus @AdamSeattle @User:ArthurPSmith @User:GZWDer @User:Gymnicus @User:Nw520 Lectrician1 (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Support AdamSeattle (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)- Support ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 09:17, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Oppose (A) I don't think has part(s) (P527) should be transitive - where did that come from? and (B) inverses in Wikidata are redundant and may be harmful. ArthurPSmith (talk) 13:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith
- (A) Property:P527#P527$adbe3f7f-4c34-01ba-7598-1d2c082a806f and part of (P361) is described as transitive at Help:Basic membership properties#part of (P361) so has part(s) (P527) must be transitive too.
- Also, it's extremely important that has part(s) (P527) and part of (P361) are transitive (they both must be or not, or else they're not inverses). If it's not, then we can't infer transitive relationships when they do exist.
- (B) Did you not read the Motivation? Wikipedia templates require it. Lectrician1 (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- I don't believe has part(s) (P527) and part of (P361) are strict inverses here in Wikidata. They are partial inverses of one another, but we definitely do not and should not enforce it strictly, and the ontological entailments cannot be as simple as you claim. In particular since has part(s) (P527) is used as an inverse for member of (P463) then clearly it's not currently transitive. If we "fix" this case as you suggest, are there not other similar relations currently falling under has part(s) (P527) that would still be a problem? I also have some doubts about part of (P361) always being transitive - "part of" clearly can mean different things to different people and in different contexts. On (B) yes, I guess I missed your motivation statement, but wouldn't it be better to fix the templates to use the member of (P463) relations? Or is that impossible? ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- For a simple example that I think doesn't make sense transitively, we have forest (Q4421) has part(s) (P527) tree (Q10884) and tree (Q10884) has part(s) (P527) bark (Q184453) (actually currently the relations are has part(s) of the class (P2670) but with a usage warning) - should that really imply forest (Q4421) has part(s) (P527) bark (Q184453)? It's not the kind of statement one would normally say, although it would be generally true that there are many pieces of bark in a forest - both on trees and fallen off. At least to me has part(s) (P527) implies a closeness in relationship that would be lost after a number of transitive steps, and so it just shouldn't be considered transitive generally. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Oppose We should work toward less dublicative data and not more. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/WDQS_backend_update/March_2023_scaling_update suggests willingness to work on making inverse queries with Lua, which would solve the usecase in templates. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:28, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl Okay, but that doesn't exist right now, and there's a very small chance of it being resolved anytime soon. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- There's no reason to rush doing anything about this. Creating a new property and then deleting it in 1-2 years seems bad to me. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 21:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- @ChristianKl Okay, but that doesn't exist right now, and there's a very small chance of it being resolved anytime soon. Lectrician1 (talk) 15:33, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
