Wikidata:Property proposal/state of transmission

‎state of transmission[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Done: state of transmission (P12020) (Talk and documentation)

Data type	Item
Domain	written work (Q47461344) and its subclasses, perhaps even work (Q386724) and its subclasses
Example 1	On Lycia and Pamphylia (Q121157788) -> "lost"
Example 2	Isaurian history (Q121157828) -> "fragmentary"
Example 3	Roman History (Q12901800) -> "partial"

Motivation[edit]

This proposal is inspired by my working with the Clavis Historicorum Antiquitatis Posterioris (Q87125491) where this category features in the works catalogue. Similar to state of conservation (P5816), this property is meant to describe the state of preservation for creative works (especially written works, but it could also apply to visual and audio files – I invite you to give your opinion on this question). I work in Ancient literature where the state of transmission is a valuable piece of information. If this property finds consensus, we should define a one-of constraint (Q21510859) with values such as:

"hypothetical" for works only suggested by modern research
Example: Fastenquelle of Socrates (Q120734611)
"lost" for works only known by title but without any fragments
Example: On Lycia and Pamphylia (Q121157788)
"fragmentary" for works transmitted in fragments (either small scraps of direct transmission or citations from other works, i.e. indirect transmission)
Example: Isaurian history (Q121157828)
"partial" for works transmitted directly (i.e. in a manuscript or papyrus scrap) but incompletely. To make the difference to "fragmentary" less vague, "partial" applies to substantial parts of the work being transmitted.
Example: Roman History (Q12901800)
"full" for works transmitted entirely (or at least with >90% of their content)
Example: Histories (Q746583)

These categories are just what comes to mind after working the field for some years. I am open to suggestions.

As to why I wouldn't use state of conservation (P5816) for this: That property seems to be designated for buildings and physical structures. There are cases where both properties could apply, such as monumentous inscriptions like Oenoanda inscription (Q48077960).

Let me know what you think.

Notified participants of WikiProject Antiquity! Best wishes, Jonathan Groß (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Support the necessity of such property is evident and the argument for creating a new one instead of using state of conservation (P5816) convinces me. I suggest to list the QIDs of the five items outlined above (also creating the missing ones); as of now no other reasonable options came to my mind, but they could come later :) --Epìdosis 18:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Epìdosis: I would prefer to create new items for every quality. Jonathan Groß (talk) 19:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very important addition! -- Marcus Cyron (talk) 19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, looks like a useful property for items on literary works. --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How would this apply to works that are fragmentary in their original language, but have complete translations surviving in another language? How would it apply to transcriptions like those on the Rosetta Stone, where one of the language inscriptions is complete, another is partial, and the third is fragmentary? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@EncycloPetey: For works that have surviving translations in another language, I suggest we do as the Clavis Historicorum does and consider any translation a work in its own right and create items for them as well. Then we can specify for each version the state of transmission.

As to the Rosetta stone, I can imagine several avenues. We could set different values with qualifier "applies to part" (in this case "hieroglyphic text: partial", "demotic text: complete", "greek text: partial" (I haven't counted the words but as far as I remember from my 2003 school project, the Greek text is largely intact.). - Another way would be to label the whole text as "state of transmission: partial" as substantial parts of the hieroglyphic and some parts of the Greek text are missing. But this point is certainly up for debate and I will gladly explore it further with you and others. Jonathan Groß (talk) 21:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Treating a translation in its own right would require a change in the way Wikiproject:Books handles things, as well as projects like Film and Music, and would therefore require a discussion to happen before doing so. We can't make an offhand decision in a property proposal that would change what several other projects have been doing.

I see from responses that the issue is blurring the lines between "work", "edition / translation", and "instance", and therefore have to Oppose this property proposal as not being well thought through. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Again with the unnecessary prioritization of versions over works. Just because of the translation situation. FYI, translations can also have versions of those translations, such as newer editions of the same translation... And editions can have versions, such as reprints of the same "second edition". So it's not black and white, ever. Not everything has to go to the versions, let's have the works get some respect too. It seems like so many people keep forgetting that basically every site, including Wikipedia and Wikiquote for two examples, primarily use the work rather than the version, and that even on Wikisource, versions pages are for the works. We can blur the line between work and version a little bit, that's fine. Most people care about the work anyway. No one ever asks the question, "hmmm, is this specific reprint of an edition from 1923 a lost reprint?" No... It's much more meaningful to someone if no known copies of a book, as a work, are known to survive. If no editions are known to exist, the work can yes be considered lost. If we're talking about one translation's survival status, we can put it on the translation item, fine. But either a work or a version could be considered lost or extant. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: What I mean by treating translations as works in their own right, I am referring to historical translations. For instance, Breviarium (Q1248970) (Latin work written around 370, preserved in full form) which has several Greek translations: Translation of Eutropius (Q121157803) (written around 379 with minor additions and omissions, preserved in full), Translation of the Breviarium of Eutropius (Q121169702) (written around 500, preserved in fragments) and one by Anonymous (Translation of Eutropius) (Q120734189) (before 813, hypothetical).I don't mean modern translations of books, and I do not intend to confuse editions, translations and books with works. I will gladly educate myself to try and clarify my proposal.

Perhaps it would be prudent to restrict this property to the pre-Gutenberg era where ee are dealing with very fragmented corpora so the state of transmission is an important piece of information. Jonathan Groß (talk) 06:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not entirely convinced by the argument about the distinction with state of conservation (P5816), but I do think there should be one. For me however, the fundamental distinction shouldn't be between buildings and works, but between material and immaterial concepts. To take an example, a given papyrus or manuscript might be only preserved as a fragment, and if its the only testimonium of a work then the work itself is only transmitted as a fragment. But this fragmentary papyrus might well be one among an hundred and therefore the whole work is entirely transmitted. This distinction might help solve the points mentionned by @EncycloPetey:, at least for the Rosetta Stone: the three texts are three versions of the same edict by Ptolemy V, and thus should only be considered with state of conservation (P5816). For existing translations of lost works however, my point of view would join the one of Jonathan, not least because the translation might well be know only by copies of copies and we can't in fact judge if the translation is acurate or faithful. Moreover, we are speaking of translations that have themselve a complex history of transmission. I have the feeling that those weren't really taken into account when devising the Bibframe model we are using here; likewise, most if not all libraries catalog Ilias Latina (Q1220978) as a work and not an edition. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jahl de Vautban: Thanks for your comment! I realise now that I have indeed not clarified what I meant by "works". I do indeed refer to works as immaterial concepts and not of their material witnesses, i.e. the papyrus scrap, ostracon, manuscript or palm leaf transmitting the work. Those are objects in their own right and they should be classified according to their nature, perhaps using state of conservation (P5816). The property proposed here is meant to apply to works as immaterial concepts instead (especially from the pre-print era). Jonathan Groß (talk) 07:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support if we can also extend this discussion to the survival status of films, video games, and other forms of media? This property would actually be in the interest of the lost media community, see w:Lost film. Maybe we should just call the property "survival status" so it can apply to these other situations. There are so many lost films, and it'd be useful to sort them on that metric. PseudoSkull (talk) 10:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Noting here that there is also an entire site that is dedicated to the documentation of lost media, called LostMediaWiki. So, that's a potential place that such data could be imported from. Also, the Library of Congress has lots of data on lost and surviving films (here's an example of a 2021 compilation work that was originally based on that data). PseudoSkull (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @JASHough, Jflynn70, Ily88: any thoughts on the above?Ahc84 (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jonathan Groß: It seems like the discussion is primarily centered around classical works, but do you have any comment on how this might be dealt with more broadly, for example in the realm of films, etc.? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not Jonathan, but I think that would be a welcome broaden of the scope of this property. It should be usable for any type of works. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

With @Jonathan Groß:'s clarification that is is for the works as immaterial concepts, this makes sense and differentiates the property from 'state of conservation', which can then serve to describe fragmentary or complete states for individual text witnesses as material objects. So

Support and I would also agree the concept could be expanded to include film and other media too! JASHough (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed I would welcome broadening the scope of the property to any immaterial creative work. The caption 'survival status' is appealing to me, but I'm not sure if it's better than 'state of transmission'. Jonathan Groß (talk) 12:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question to all participants of this discussion (JASHough, PseudoSkull, Ahc84, Jahl de Vautban, EncycloPetey, DerMaxdorfer, Marcus Cyron, Epìdosis): How do we proceed? I feel I've addressed the concerns expressed here. I'll try and summarize the consensus:
1. There is a rationale for creating a new property which qualifies the state of transmission (or survival status) of a creative work as an abstract object.
2. The new property would be different from (and complementary to) the existing state of conservation (P5816) which is meant for concrete objects (such as architectural remains, ostraca, papyri, artifacts, manuscripts etc.).
3. The name of the new property should reflect its intended use as clearly as possible. We have yet to find a solution for that. So far, two names have been suggested (see #1). I lean toward state of transmission (as "survival" could be misleading). Would you give me your opinion?
4. The values for this property are yet to be created. From my own experience, I suggest the following (in descending degree of tangibility): full > partial > excerpts > fragments > lost (i.e. title only) > hypothetical > projected (i.e. alluded to but never realized).

Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Jonathan Groß (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on all the above points; the preferrable name is "state of transmission" IMHO, "survival status" could be an alias (as well as, I would propose, "transmission status"). --Epìdosis 08:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree on Jonathan's points as well and also on the comment by Epidosis. DerMaxdorfer (talk) 10:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree on all points! JASHough (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For the item values I created a set of items (all subclasses of state of transmission (Q122238678)). You can find them with this query:

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P279 wd:Q122238678.
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}