Wikidata:Property proposal/agent of action
agent of action
[edit]Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Description | thing that does the action |
---|---|
Data type | Item |
Domain | action (Q4026292) |
Example 1 | German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918)agent of actionArmy Group B (Q157572) Source |
Example 2 | Opening of Tokyo 2020 games (Q116504974)agent of actionNaruhito (Q217096) Source |
Example 3 | Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)agent of actionJohann Philipp Reis (Q77124) Source |
Example 4 | crime (Q83267)agent of actioncriminal (Q2159907) |
Example 5 | competition (Q841654)agent of actioncontestant (Q5165152) |
Example 6 | telephone call (Q2296401)agent of actioncaller (Q113293705) |
See also | https://schema.org/agent |
Motivation
[edit]I would like to create a data model to describe notable actions agents have made that are described in various Wikimedia articles. We should allow users to document actions so that they can be used to create timelines of events that can then be easily translated. They can also be used as a source to generate detailed Wikipedia article content for Abstract Wikipedia.
This property is the first to be proposed of the data model and follows the Schema.org data model for actions: https://schema.org/Action
participant (P710) exists, however that's usually used usually for events and not actions. It also requires that you use object of statement has role (P3831) to specify the role of the participant. For a relationship as critical and common as an agent is to the action they perform, we should have a dedicated property and not be required to add object of statement has role (P3831)agent (Q24229398) to every single agent statement. Lectrician1 (talk) 22:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Discussion
[edit]Support -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 19:59, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- Would this work? telephone call (Q2296401)agent of actioncaller (Q113293705). Also, an alias (or better label) could be "done by", more usable than practiced by (P3095) for non-professions. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
- I actually was considering using telephone call (Q2296401) as an example! However, I think the what that item is describing is the act of talking to someone over a telephone. Not the act of calling someone on a telephone. The agent of a telephone call (Q2296401) is just a normal human then.
- Good catch with the similarities to practiced by (P3095)! I almost thought for a second that we could maybe just broaden the scope and rename practiced by (P3095) to "done by" but then I realized that the domain of practiced by (P3095) includes "fields" which are not really actions. I think it's important to distinguish that this is meant for actions by maintaining "action" in the label. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
- Would this work? telephone call (Q2296401)agent of actioncaller (Q113293705). Also, an alias (or better label) could be "done by", more usable than practiced by (P3095) for non-professions. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment See my concerns with the related property proposal “object of action”. The examples given here make is appear as if those concerns mightn’t apply here, but already users are considering more general use of this proposed property like telephone call (Q2296401)‘agent of action’ (Pxxx)caller (Q113293705) (see above), which would be subject to those same concerns. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 04:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment The examples can be converted to use participant (P710), and we have officially opened by (P542) too. Midleading (talk) 03:09, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use those properties for classes, though. Not sure why the only examples are for instance values, class values look much more valuable here to me. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 03:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- Yeah, this property should be updated with class examples. But the problem with telephone call (Q2296401) is why the value is not Q5. We also have countless dailiy activities that every person can do. Perhaps the label should be "action performed by role" for telephone call (Q2296401). The significant overlap with practiced by (P3095) and participant (P710) is noted, and they have already used like this (crime (Q83267)→criminal (Q2159907), competition (Q841654)→contestant (Q5165152)) Midleading (talk) 08:26, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
- I wouldn't use those properties for classes, though. Not sure why the only examples are for instance values, class values look much more valuable here to me. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 03:51, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Question Is this intended to contrast with/be complemented by a (potential future) property patient of action (Pyyy)? For example:
Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)‘agent of action’ (Pxxx)Johann Philipp Reis (Q77124)
Johann Philipp Reis demonstration of the Reis telephone to the Physical Society of Frankfurt (Q116504999)patient of action (Pyyy)Physikalischer Verein (Q2089433)
(The ‘agent’ property would indicate who performs the action, the ‘patient’ property, to whom it happens.)―BlaueBlüte (talk) 03:15, 18 March 2023 (UTC)- Isn't "patient of action" "object of action"? Lectrician1 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Intuitively I’d have (in the telephone example) associated the telephone with ‘object’, but yes, ‘patient’ and ‘object’ are probably hard to keep apart in any consistent way. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:43, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Isn't "patient of action" "object of action"? Lectrician1 (talk) 05:39, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment @Wd-Ryan, Midleading: Regarding the telephone-call example, note the close similarity with the dog-walking example in the proposal for a property “frame element” that attempts to capture actions from a frame-semantics angle. One might want to look into whether the frame-semantics approach is better-suited to statements over classes and the the approach proposed here, to statements over instances. At any rate, I think one and the same property should not be used for both class statements and instance statements. (A property like this here one but for class statements should have the distinctive interpretation of something like “instances have agents of type”.) Insofar I support the current choice of examples for this property proposal. ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 03:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Support we need a generalized property to describe this kind of relationship, for example I suppose conjugation of gametes (Q11742512)→gamete (Q211050) and fertilization (Q14890574)→egg cell (Q1321695),sperm (Q17145). --Mzaki (talk) 01:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Question How about broadening the use of perpetrator (P8031) instead, removing the (un)ethical assessment? One man's terrorist... Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
- @Maculosae tegmine lyncis Not a bad idea... I like it. @Arbnos @Wd-Ryan @Mzaki @BlaueBlüte @Midleading what do you think? Lectrician1 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- I would strongly support this, I've been unable to add a group that performed an event without the implication that it was "immoral". It could be renamed to "done by". -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Having given this only a moderate amount of thought I’d say
no (to broadening perpetrator (P8031)), because the domain of perpetrator (P8031) includes (instances of) classes that are not subclasses of action (Q4026292) as proposed here, but for example of occurrence (Q1190554). And instances of occurrence (Q1190554) can have multiple agents, only some of which might be considered perpetrator (P8031) (say, versus ‘victim’), a distinction that users of perpetrator (P8031) probably rely on.
But perpetrator (P8031) could perhaps be made a subproperty of this new property ‘agent of action’ (Pxxx) (although similar reservations might apply). ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- Having given this only a moderate amount of thought I’d say
- I would strongly support this, I've been unable to add a group that performed an event without the implication that it was "immoral". It could be renamed to "done by". -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
- @Maculosae tegmine lyncis Not a bad idea... I like it. @Arbnos @Wd-Ryan @Mzaki @BlaueBlüte @Midleading what do you think? Lectrician1 (talk) 00:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Support, an important property for the completeness of Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment There is a more general method of indicating the participants of actions (including agents) proposed at Wikidata:WikiProject Events and Role Frames. Mahir256 (talk) 11:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1:, could you please clarify the comments above by @Mahir256:. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mahir256 @ZI Jony @Anatole Gershman using object of statement has role (P3831) as a qualifier for practiced by (P3095) on action items seems silly. I still concur with my original reasoning that
Lectrician1 (talk) 18:18, 6 July 2024 (UTC)For a relationship as critical and common as an agent is to the action they perform, we should have a dedicated property and not be required to add object has role (P3831)agent (Q24229398) to every single agent statement.- @Mahir256:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the response? @Midleading, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, Mzaki, BlaueBlüte, Lectrician1, Wd-Ryan: pining for attention. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- At least the examples should be updated. It should be used to describe relation between classes, not instances. Midleading (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Midleading. Either way, I've been wanting a property like this forever, so I support. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1:, could you please clarify the comments above. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:46, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think instances of actions are okay. Lectrician1 (talk) 11:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Midleading and @Wd-Ryan, pinging for your attention and feedback. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really mind having instances, but the examples should have some classes too to show the range. That's what I'll be using it for most. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1, could you please update the examples as suggested so that we would be able to move forward. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1, could you please update the examples as suggested so that we would be able to move forward. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 02:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Midleading and @Wd-Ryan, would you please update the examples as you have suggested so that we would be able to move forward. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not only have I done that, but I also split this proposal into two properties. I did this because of uncontested comments by Midleading and BlaueBlüte, as well as the proposal for the inverse property, object of action and object class of action, which was accepted and created. I don't think this will be controversial, but I'd like to hear approval from Lectrician1. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 01:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- idk why we need two different properties for class and instance. just makes things more repetative. also, if you're going to completely change the proposal like this, everyone is going to need to revote. my vote would be with the original proposal where there was just one property Lectrician1 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- I kind of agree, but what about that other proposal? Would it be okay to have a class version for that one, but not this one? I can merge them if the inconsistency isn't an issue. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 15:30, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- idk why we need two different properties for class and instance. just makes things more repetative. also, if you're going to completely change the proposal like this, everyone is going to need to revote. my vote would be with the original proposal where there was just one property Lectrician1 (talk) 12:20, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not only have I done that, but I also split this proposal into two properties. I did this because of uncontested comments by Midleading and BlaueBlüte, as well as the proposal for the inverse property, object of action and object class of action, which was accepted and created. I don't think this will be controversial, but I'd like to hear approval from Lectrician1. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 01:26, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Midleading and @Wd-Ryan, would you please update the examples as you have suggested so that we would be able to move forward. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 21:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1, could you please update the examples as suggested so that we would be able to move forward. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 02:16, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1, could you please update the examples as suggested so that we would be able to move forward. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:59, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
- I don't really mind having instances, but the examples should have some classes too to show the range. That's what I'll be using it for most. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 21:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Midleading and @Wd-Ryan, pinging for your attention and feedback. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
- Agree with Midleading. Either way, I've been wanting a property like this forever, so I support. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- At least the examples should be updated. It should be used to describe relation between classes, not instances. Midleading (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Mahir256:, would you like to give your final opinion based on the response? @Midleading, Maculosae tegmine lyncis, Mzaki, BlaueBlüte, Lectrician1, Wd-Ryan: pining for attention. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 03:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
- @Lectrician1:, could you please clarify the comments above by @Mahir256:. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 06:23, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
The rationale for splitting object of action and object class of action was expressed by User:BlaueBlüte on this earlier version of that proposal. Technically, they are right that without an instance–class distinction, some statements could be ambiguous to a non-human; however, that is also true of lots of existing properties, e.g. participant (P710), physically interacts with (P129), location (P276), and probably a hundred others. I would say there's no particularly good reason for such a property split on this proposal, but I support whatever gets it over the line, which the approach I took on the "object [class] of" proposal. Swpb (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Alright, I put them back into one property. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 14:17, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Support! Thought I had already voted here, but apparently not. Anyway, this is very much needed. (Edit: I also
Support the split proposal. Swpb (talk) 16:27, 6 August 2024 (UTC)) Swpb (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Comment For some reason, the inverse proposal included a separate property for class values. They should be consistent. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:09, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- These proposals are not inverses ("object of action" links an action to an object, whereas this proposal links an action to an agent), and the same ambiguity rationale doesn't necessarily apply here. (They might in some sense be complimentary properties; that relation isn't especially well defined.) Swpb (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose Andrea Westerinen There are several issues with this proposal, which also apply to the object class of action (P12913) property. "Agent of action" correctly references an instance of a class as in the example above - e.g., MilitaryOffensiveXYZ "agent of action" Attacker123. However, "agent class of action" is defined as the class of things that does the action. In the case of a crime (Q83267) or a military offensive (Q2001676), this would be group of humans (Q16334295) or human (Q5). Instead, in the examples, I see a fine-grained semantic role specified ... e.g., crime (Q83267)agent class of actioncriminal (Q2159907)). criminal (Q2159907) is an instance of an occupation, not a human (Q5). Using the definition for "agent class of action" for the "crime" example, you could only identify criminal occupations, not humans. This is clearly not the intent. As another example, take German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918)agent of actionArmy Group B (Q157572), defined above. I would expect that Army Group B (Q157572) would be an instance of attacker (Q31924059), its semantic role. Instead, it is a subclass (far down the tree) of group of humans (Q16334295) - nowhere is it identified in the event-specific context of an "attacker (Q31924059)". In addition, for a military offensive, you also should distinguish the roles of the defender and the entity that is attacked. Perhaps the specific instances of defender and attacked could be identified as object of action (P12912), but this defeats the purpose of a single "object" of action since they carry different semantic roles. And, their object class of action (P12913) would still be group of humans (Q16334295) or human (Q5). Taking this approach would require the definition of a host of additional properties for all the various semantic roles, and still leaves the fine-grained semantic role unspecified. I much prefer the [has semantic role property proposal]. And, I would strongly advocate for combining these concepts together and providing a list of the possible instance level properties that could be used (e.g., "agent of action", object of action (P12912), uses (P2283) for the role of "instruments", etc.).
- @AWesterinen: I don't I see any problem with this property (singular, as Wd-Ryan has reverted the proposal) accepting any value that is an agent or class of agents, be it a human, a group of humans, an occupation, etc. Are you saying there is some possible ambiguity in the statements you give as examples? They mean, respectively, "crimes are done by criminals" and "the 12/16 attack was done by Army Group B"; I don't see room for any other interpretations. I would not expect Army Group B (Q157572) to be a subclass of attacker (Q31924059), since, as you note, that is an event-specific role, and in other events it may have been a defender (Q111729140) instead. The fact that it is an attacker in this case is inferable from the use of "agent of action" instead of "object of action": attacks, as a class, always have an attacker as agent, and a target/defender/victim or the like as object. We can make that rule explicit with attack (Q1174599)agent of actionattacker (Q31924059) and attack (Q1174599)object class of action (P12913)Q6518482, Q111729140, Q1851760, etc.. The first of those statements, taken with German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918)instance of (P31)attack (Q1174599), imply unambiguously that the agent of German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918) is, in that context, an attacker (Q31924059). We can also, if there is still some ambiguity, clarify statements with object of statement has role (P3831) – for example, is the agent of an auction (Q177923) the lot owner, or the auction house? But even in that case, "agent of action" leaves less room for ambiguity than the properties it would be replacing (probably participant (P710), which could mean the buyer, or the horrendously ambiguous of (P642), which could refer to the item being sold [the object of action (P12912)]!). (Side note: although there are no examples in this proposal of the property being used as a qualifer, it will, like "object [class] of action" , be tremendously useful in offloading and ultimately deprecating of (P642), a project I'm deeply involved in.) I don't see any argument here for defining any other properties, least of all "has semantic role", whose flaws I think I've well documented on its proposal page. Swpb (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb: Using your examples from your reply may help to clarify my objection. The "rule" attack (Q1174599)agent of actionattacker (Q31924059) is not the same as the saying that "specific_attack123 'agent of action' specific_groupABC". The latter statement concerns instances, while the former is about concepts/classes. I think that mixing these distinctions is wrong. Also, stating attack (Q1174599)object class of action (P12913)Q6518482, Q111729140, Q1851760, etc. does not help to disambiguate the actual object of the attack from the defender. Digging further, Template:Q6518482, Template:Q111729140 and Template:Q1851760 are not the classes of the objects (as indicated by the definition of object class of action (P12913), but are the classes of the semantic roles of the objects. This intermingling of concept/class and instance are key to my objection to this proposal, and why I prefer to actually identify some of these concepts as (fine-grained) semantic roles with their mappings to the more general roles of linguistic analysis. AWesterinen (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can't it be determined if the value is an instance or a class by looking at the value's item? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 00:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, as far as I can see. Swpb (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can't it be determined if the value is an instance or a class by looking at the value's item? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 00:50, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb: Using your examples from your reply may help to clarify my objection. The "rule" attack (Q1174599)agent of actionattacker (Q31924059) is not the same as the saying that "specific_attack123 'agent of action' specific_groupABC". The latter statement concerns instances, while the former is about concepts/classes. I think that mixing these distinctions is wrong. Also, stating attack (Q1174599)object class of action (P12913)Q6518482, Q111729140, Q1851760, etc. does not help to disambiguate the actual object of the attack from the defender. Digging further, Template:Q6518482, Template:Q111729140 and Template:Q1851760 are not the classes of the objects (as indicated by the definition of object class of action (P12913), but are the classes of the semantic roles of the objects. This intermingling of concept/class and instance are key to my objection to this proposal, and why I prefer to actually identify some of these concepts as (fine-grained) semantic roles with their mappings to the more general roles of linguistic analysis. AWesterinen (talk) 21:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @AWesterinen: I don't I see any problem with this property (singular, as Wd-Ryan has reverted the proposal) accepting any value that is an agent or class of agents, be it a human, a group of humans, an occupation, etc. Are you saying there is some possible ambiguity in the statements you give as examples? They mean, respectively, "crimes are done by criminals" and "the 12/16 attack was done by Army Group B"; I don't see room for any other interpretations. I would not expect Army Group B (Q157572) to be a subclass of attacker (Q31924059), since, as you note, that is an event-specific role, and in other events it may have been a defender (Q111729140) instead. The fact that it is an attacker in this case is inferable from the use of "agent of action" instead of "object of action": attacks, as a class, always have an attacker as agent, and a target/defender/victim or the like as object. We can make that rule explicit with attack (Q1174599)agent of actionattacker (Q31924059) and attack (Q1174599)object class of action (P12913)Q6518482, Q111729140, Q1851760, etc.. The first of those statements, taken with German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918)instance of (P31)attack (Q1174599), imply unambiguously that the agent of German December 16 suprise attack in the Battle of the Bulge (Q116504918) is, in that context, an attacker (Q31924059). We can also, if there is still some ambiguity, clarify statements with object of statement has role (P3831) – for example, is the agent of an auction (Q177923) the lot owner, or the auction house? But even in that case, "agent of action" leaves less room for ambiguity than the properties it would be replacing (probably participant (P710), which could mean the buyer, or the horrendously ambiguous of (P642), which could refer to the item being sold [the object of action (P12912)]!). (Side note: although there are no examples in this proposal of the property being used as a qualifer, it will, like "object [class] of action" , be tremendously useful in offloading and ultimately deprecating of (P642), a project I'm deeply involved in.) I don't see any argument here for defining any other properties, least of all "has semantic role", whose flaws I think I've well documented on its proposal page. Swpb (talk) 14:25, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- 1) I understand that your objection is the mixing of instances and classes in the subject and object slots of the property. What I don't see is what problem you think that causes. As I pointed out, dozens of properties already function that way without issue. A problem would be the sort of ambiguity where it is unclear if a particular subject and/or object should be interpreted as instance or class. I am asking you for a single example of such a statement.
- 2) Fine-grained roles may be distinguished with object of statement has role (P3831) as I described above: Where a type of action permits multiple agent roles (e.g. an auction in which both the lot owner and the auction house are agents, but with different fine-grained roles), object of statement has role (P3831) can specify the role (just as it may now with participant (P710), but with the benefit that, unlike participant (P710), an unqualified "agent of action" statement does not permit its object to be an object of the action). I imagine you would rather see a multitude of properties like "owner of auction lot" and "auction house" that would enable that information to be expressed without the use of a qualifier. Maybe there is a case to be made for such properties, but I don't think you appreciate the context in which we are working: right now, information about agency is often only expressible with great ambiguity, especially when the action being described is the value of a main statement, with its agent identified by a qualifier. At the moment, participant (P710) and of (P642) are the only way to do this; the former only applies to people/organizations and, as I noted, is more ambiguous than "agent of action" with respect to role, and the latter has about a thousand meanings and is essentially useless for any sort of automated interpretation. Introducing "agent of action" greatly improves the expressibility of this information, while doing nothing to impede the introduction of more specific sub-properties later. In fact, having "agent of action" widely deployed will make it much easier to query for statements that may be candidates for migration to any future, fine-grained agent-role properties.
- 3) Yes, defender (Q111729140), victim (Q1851760), and military target (Q6518482) are roles, but they are also classes of objects that fill those roles. You won't see a general statement Army Group B (Q157572)instance of (P31)attacker (Q31924059), because that item is not always an attacker, but in the context of the statement about the 12/16 attack, it certainly is an instance of the class "attacker". The "rule" statement means that items in that position can be assumed to take on that role in context, not that they must always belong to that class. If that context-dependent class membership is a problem, we can very easily revise the description text of object class of action (P12913) to explicitly allow it: how about "class of objects (including substances) to which an action may occur, or role that the object of an action will fill in the context of that action"? Swpb (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I agree with Andrea Westerinen that there is a problem with instance vs role. This somehow did not come up with object of action (P12912) and object class of action (P12913). Consider crime (Q83267)agent of actioncriminal (Q2159907). I expect, then, each and every agent of each and every crime to be a criminal. But when I look at criminal (Q2159907) I see very few instances, and notably not Richard Nixon (Q9588). Is Richard Nixon (Q9588) not suitable as an agent of an instance of crime (Q83267)? Not so, any human (at least) is suitable as an agent of an instance of crime (Q83267). So at the very least the examples need to be rethought or the description of the property redone.
- There is as well a problem with the domain. The examples are not just actions, but also classes of actions. This needs to be addressed. And the comments in a concern with the related property proposal “object of action” are also germane here, indicating that two properties are required.
- This is not to say that the proposal cannot be salvaged, but work needs to be done on it. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 20:27, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- We could potentially use applies to use with property (P11527) as a qualifier to clear this up? I.e. crime (Q83267)agent of actioncriminal (Q2159907)
applies to use with property (P11527)occupation (P106) -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 02:26, 14 August 2024 (UTC) - @Wd-Ryan I don't think so. Consider Richard Nixon (Q9588) again. This item is very famous so the information there should be relatively complete. But there is no criminal (Q2159907) given for occupation (P106). The issue is that participation in an event very seldom affects the information stored on its object or agent because the participation is generally not sufficiently important to be noted there. Consider military offensive (Q2001676). The role of "agent (class) of action" there would be attacker (Q31924059). But the values of "agent of action" on instances of military offensive (Q2001676), such as Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222) with "agent of action" Soviet Union (Q15180), would not usually be instances of attacker (Q31924059) or even related to attacker (Q31924059). Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Politics aside, if Richard Nixon (Q9588) committed a crime, he would definitionally be a "criminal". This seems more like an error in the item's model. I don't think the value for Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222) would be Soviet Union (Q15180), but instead a specific organization or military unit that does attacking. -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 16:16, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Wd-Ryan I don't think so. Consider Richard Nixon (Q9588) again. This item is very famous so the information there should be relatively complete. But there is no criminal (Q2159907) given for occupation (P106). The issue is that participation in an event very seldom affects the information stored on its object or agent because the participation is generally not sufficiently important to be noted there. Consider military offensive (Q2001676). The role of "agent (class) of action" there would be attacker (Q31924059). But the values of "agent of action" on instances of military offensive (Q2001676), such as Petsamo–Kirkenes Offensive (Q705222) with "agent of action" Soviet Union (Q15180), would not usually be instances of attacker (Q31924059) or even related to attacker (Q31924059). Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 09:59, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Peter, I addressed your first concern in my point #3, and your second concern in point #1, of my response to Andrea above; I'd appreciate if you could engage with those responses and point out where you find them insufficient. Thanks, Swpb (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I do not find your point #3 relevant at all. Sure, things like criminal (Q2159907) may be classes as well as occupations, but there is no hint in Wikidata that Richard Nixon (Q9588) is related to criminal (Q2159907) in any way. How then, is one to determine whether Richard Nixon (Q9588) is the kind of thing that can be the agent of a crime (Q83267)? I stated this concern in my original oppose message.
- Your point #1 asks for examples where there can be a mixup between instances and the class. This problem was already pointed out for object of action and the result was that two properties were created, object of action (P12912) that provides the actual value for an action or instances of an action class and object class of action (P12913) that provides a class from which the value is taken. So window cleaning (Q3124765) uses object class of action (P12913) but circumnavigation of Earth (Q3533809) uses object of action (P12912), eliminating a nasty kind of ambiguity. There are indeed action instances that act on classes, for example the design of Volkswagen Passat B2 (Q30600) or statistical studies of criminal (Q2159907). There are also action instances whose agent is a class, for example any activity performed by a group of humans (Q16334295).
- The two-property solution for objects of actions does overload both object of action (P12912) and object class of action (P12913), which is not generally a good idea, but the overloading there is not likely to cause horrendous problems (unless there are actions that are also classes of actions). A two-property solution for agents of actions would have the same characteristics. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 19:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Peter F. Patel-Schneider: I feel like you aren't hearing what I'm saying. "How then, is one to determine whether Richard Nixon (Q9588) is the kind of thing that can be the agent of a crime (Q83267)?” My response to that is, why is it a requirement that this property enable that determination? We are not creating a constraint here. Is it not enough to be able to infer Nixon's criminality from 1)the fact that he is given as the agent of a specific crime, and that 2)crimes as a class only admit criminals as agents? I don't see why it has to matter whether Richard Nixon (Q9588) is explicitly an instance of criminal (Q2159907) or not.
- Now, what you call a "nasty kind of ambiguity" is the normal state of affairs for dozens if not hundreds of properties, of which I have given a few examples. It's even baked into the software: a number of constraint types take the argument relation (P2309), which takes values of instance of (Q21503252), subclass of (Q21514624), and instance or subclass of (Q30208840). If properties are only supposed to accept instances or subclasses of any particular class, then the latter value should not exist. I asked for an example of this overloading causing a specific problem, i.e. where the correct meaning is not inferable, and I still haven't seen one. To my knowledge, there are only two pairs of properties that follow this instance-version/class-version separation: has part(s) (P527)/has part(s) of the class (P2670), and object of action (P12912)/object class of action (P12913), and the separation isn't needed there either, as the correct meaning between instances and classes is eminently inferable. Swpb (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb I'm trying to improve Wikidata and I hope that others are as well. I don't see that there is any reason to add yet another problem to Wikidata just because similar problems already exists. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb I think that I am hearing what you are saying. I am not trying to scuttle this proposal because of any other reason than I think it needs to be improved. And I'm not even trying to scuttle it at all but instead improve it.
- My view is that a solution for thematic relations like agent and object of actions should do two things. First it should state what kind of values are (almost) always used for the action and second it should say what the role of the value is. So the agent in a throwing action is (almost) always an object that can perform physical actions, that is an instance of some appropriate class irregardless of its participation in any action, and its role would be the thrower, but that does not make the agent be an instance of any class. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 23:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb So how would you determine whether impeachment in the United States (Q1949797)agent of actionUnited States House of Representatives (Q11701) is saying that United States House of Representatives (Q11701) performs the impeachments or instances of United States House of Representatives (Q11701) perform the impeachments. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 23:51, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- And what I'm saying is, this kind of overloading is not generally a problem, either here or on other properties, and the fact that it was anticipated and allowed for in the design of the constraints indicates that that has always been the default assumption for Wikidata: some properties are constrained to only accept instance or subclass values, and others to explicitly accept either. As I said earlier, if this overloading issue is all that's holding the proposal back, I'll accept a split version, but I really don't think it's necessary, and I think those arguing for it need to present a stronger case that the overloaded version would create truly harmful ambiguity. I don't think your House of Representatives example rises to that level, since both interpretations are correct: the House, as a continuous institution, carries out impeachments, and particular sessions of the House carry out particular impeachments. So, I'm asking for a better example.
- I see what you are saying about wanting to separately express a selectional restriction and a role; I'm going to take my own look at how "object class of action" is being used and see what I think we should do. I don't think relying on a qualifier is the solution, because a big use case for these properties is as qualifiers.
- It seems you've added a second "oppose" vote for yourself below. You already voted "oppose" above; you should not be voting more than once. Please remove the second vote, and either move your comments under this bullet, or mark them as a comment instead of a vote. Thank you. Swpb (talk) 15:44, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb Where are the conventions for this sort of discussion described? I found what I view as another problem in the proposal and marked it as a reason for opposition. Keeping discussion of that problem in a separate place seems reasonable to me and it also seems reasonable to me to have the discussion marked as an oppose discussion. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Peter, it is fine for you to have multiple reasons to oppose the proposal and discuss them all, but it is not ok for you to vote twice. You are one person. Please adjust accordingly. Swpb (talk) 16:11, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb Where are the conventions for this sort of discussion described? I found what I view as another problem in the proposal and marked it as a reason for opposition. Keeping discussion of that problem in a separate place seems reasonable to me and it also seems reasonable to me to have the discussion marked as an oppose discussion. Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- We could potentially use applies to use with property (P11527) as a qualifier to clear this up? I.e. crime (Q83267)agent of actioncriminal (Q2159907)
Oppose I took a look at the current usage of object class of action (P12913) on action classes.
- There is window cleaning (Q3124765)object class of action (P12913)window (Q35473) which looks like a selectional restriction, i.e., all objects of instances of window cleaning (Q3124765) are instances of window (Q35473) regardless of their participation in any action. (The force of this kind of statement might be made somewhat weaker by changing "all" to "almost all" or "normally", which would make them selectional preferences.) A large majority of the curent uses of object class of action (P12913) appear to be of this form. All three of the provided examples for object class of action (P12913) are also of this form.
- But then there is magic collecting (Q110581477)object class of action (P12913)souvenir (Q212469) which looks like a role, i.e., objects of instances of magic collecting (Q110581477) are not necessarily instances of souvenir (Q212469) outside of their participation in the action. But there appears to be only a small number of these uses of object class of action (P12913). All three examples of "agent of action" on action classes appear to be of this form.
- In the end, most uses of object class of action (P12913) appear to be selectional restrictions, not roles. There also appears to me to be a need for selectional restrictions on agents of actions, as agents of roles and objects of roles are very similar concepts. I also see a need for roles for agents of actions, as demonstrated in the proposal here. So there would be both crime (Q83267)agent role of actioncriminal (Q2159907) and crime (Q83267)agent class of actionperson (Q215627).
- As a result I oppose this proposal until it provides a way of stating both selectional restrictions and roles for agents of actions. It might be able to do this by using a qualifier, combining both as in crime (Q83267)agent class of actionperson (Q215627) object of statement has role (P3831) criminal (Q2159907). This has the disadvantage of repeating the selectional restriction when providing a new role and having a role become a selectional restriction when editors don't figure out that a role needs a qualified statement. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Peter F. Patel-Schneider (talk • contribs).
- I concur with your assessment that most of the objects of object class of action (P12913) are selectional restrictions, and a small minority are roles. Where I get stuck on the idea of separate properties for selectional restrictions vs. roles is that the distinction isn't always clear. Take:
- arterial blood gas analysis (Q648497)object class of action (P12913)arterial blood (Q618362) – is arterial blood (Q618362) a selectional restriction, or just a role of blood (Q7873), since the same blood moves all around the body?
- employee recognition (Q96377259)object class of action (P12913)employee (Q703534) – is employee (Q703534) a selectional restriction, or just a role of human (Q5)?
- huffing (Q2248357)object class of action (P12913)inhalant (Q900521) – is inhalant (Q900521) a selectional restriction, or just a role of a vapor or gas?
- pet insurance (Q10259814)object class of action (P12913)pet (Q39201) – is pet (Q39201) a selectional restriction, or just a role of animal (Q729)?
- I have about 10 other examples so far, where I can see different editors making different calls. The same fuzziness would apply to agents. Now, I didn't craft examples 4-6 on this proposal (I believe Wd-Ryan did), but they do suggest an asymmetry with objects of actions, where the most pertinent information about an agent will be its role more often than its selectional class. This makes sense to me, as most agents will be people or groups of people, broad classes whose members take on a lot of roles. Swpb (talk) 16:30, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- I concur with your assessment that most of the objects of object class of action (P12913) are selectional restrictions, and a small minority are roles. Where I get stuck on the idea of separate properties for selectional restrictions vs. roles is that the distinction isn't always clear. Take:
Withdrawing. Someone can redo this one that has more time than me rn to focus on WD. Lectrician1 (talk) 21:55, 15 August 2024 (UTC)