Wikidata:Property proposal/project of

project of

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	project of creation of a certain type of thing
Represents	project (Q170584)
Data type	Item
Domain	Q170584
Example 1	⟨ Aéroport du Grand Ouest (Q140205)    ⟩ project of Search ⟨ airport ⟩
Example 2	⟨ proposed airport (Q44665966)    ⟩ project of Search ⟨ airport ⟩
Example 3	⟨ 2019-20 French pension reform (Q84390099)    ⟩ project of Search ⟨ https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q1244421 ⟩
Example 4	⟨ Manhattan Project (Q127050)    ⟩ project of Search ⟨ nuclear weapon ⟩

Motivation

The situation is quite messy concerning the project ontology. We currently have airport projects considered as subclass of airports, for example, which makes project show up in queries. The of (P642) qualifier or nature of statement (P5102) are sometime used to indicate it’s a project of some kind, see https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q140205&oldid=1247399168 and https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q44665966&oldid=1486227586#P279 .

I’d like a property to make sure we have a preferred way to model this that does not requires to exclude some results from queries.

Proposed rules associated to the creation of the property:

• Project-classes like proposed airport (Q44665966) should never be subclasses of the type of project
• project are instances of project (Q170584)   , project-classes are subclasses of project (Q170584)
• project classes do not use the of (P642) qualifier

author  TomT0m / talk page 11:15, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

See also

Wikidata:Property_proposal/outcome to link the projects to the actual objects and not their types. It can occur that a project has a concrete result that is not of the same kind as the initial goal.

Discussion

 Comment Hi TomT0m! I'm gathering here that you want to distinguish between an item for a construction project, and the item for the entity it becomes at a later date, with the first being an instance of (some subclass of) "project", and the second being an instance of the type of building that the project is for? So for example we have Penn Station Access (Q16986985) vs Pennsylvania Station (Q54451), the first being a project and the second a railway station. What about using the property facet of (P1269) to link them? If there's no item yet for the planned building or structure, then create a new item (which would be an instance of whatever type of building it is). Does that make sense? ArthurPSmith (talk)

Hi Arthur ! A better thing to do would be a « outcome » property for project items, I guess. :) I’ll launch the proposal. It has the benefit that for abandoned project we can have statements like « outcome: no value Help » . author  TomT0m / talk page 18:58, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done

I replaced the « * » to make items with « : » because the « answer » discussion tool seem not to understand this, it does not show the « reply » button under your comment

To reply more completely, I think that actually creating an item for something that is only planned would be totally defeating the purpose of this proposal. I may understand if it’s a building in building for example, but for something that is just planned with no physical existence I don’t think it’s a good idea. It exists only in our minds … as a project. Which is why I think it’s a good idea to have a « project » item (the project, however, exists). author  TomT0m / talk page 10:53, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Non-tangible concepts and ideas do exist, and we work with them just like any other. It’s sort-of like the concept of object permanence. A “project” is less ‘real’ than even the planned airport it’s for. The term is also entirely generic, so you’d have to make an effort to add that information. We do of course have items for future events, buildings, and other things, just as we have items for past events and air-ports that no longer exist. A planned airport should have statements for date of official opening (P1619) and/or service entry (P729) with either no value Help or a future date, which you can use to exclude them in your queries.

Now it’s perfectly fine to create items specifically for a construction project if there’s some need for it, in the same way that other aspects are sometimes kept separate and other times not, like an event, the company running it, and its headquarter’s building. Karl Oblique (talk) 08:52, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

• What would be the P31 of these? What happens if the project is dealt with on the same item as its outcome? --- Jura 11:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
•  Support, an important property for projects.--Arbnos (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

•  Wait I recently noticed has goal (P3712), this might be a duplicate ! author  TomT0m / talk page 08:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

  @TomT0m: Given that you have proposed it, if you think it's a duplicate, do you want to withdraw it? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 18:00, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Oppose isn't this redundant with has goal (P3712)? BrokenSegue (talk) 03:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
• What about product, material, or service produced or provided (P1056)? Lectrician1 (talk) 06:19, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
• @TomT0m:, for now I mark as  Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 18:39, 1 June 2023 (UTC)