Property talk:P393
Documentation
number of an edition (first, second, ... as 1, 2, ...) or event
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P393#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P393#Type Q3331189, Q27968055, Q13219666, Q13406554, Q1656682, Q732577, Q20826013, Q1364556, Q79719, Q10688145, Q13136, Q1187691, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P393#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P393#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P393#Scope, SPARQL
|
Pattern ^\?$ will be automatically replaced to somevalue. Testing: TODO list |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
Discussion[edit]
Proposal: Remove numeric string constraint.[edit]
As already agreed upon in other discussion on this page this property should be usable for software. There are also cases where editions of documents or written works use non numeric versioning:
- Roman numerals (Q38918) as mentioned by Amadalvarez
- ?iteminstance of (P31)ITU-T recommendation version (Q55936923) (e.g. Recommendation F.421 (11/1988): Message handling services: Intercommunication between the IPM service and the telex service (Q27051344)) use edition numbers like "MM/YYYY" (e.g. "11/1988")
- ETSI/3GPP standards: 3GPP TS 23.203 ETSI TS 123 203 use version numbers MAJOR.MINOR.PATCH
at the time of writing this property has the following constraint/properties which prohibits the above use cases:
- edition number (P393)property constraint (P2302)format constraint (Q21502404)
format as a regular expression (P1793)[1-9][0-9]* - edition number (P393)format as a regular expression (P1793)[1-9][0-9]*
I propose that we remove these constraints and have none as it is not clear that there are reasonable constraints that would cover all cases. As a compromise if this is a serious problem we could just limit the constraints to cover all known cases of legitimate uses. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
WikiProject Informatics has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
WikiProject Books has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
@Malore, Jsamwrites, OdileB: @Amadalvarez:
Discussion[edit]
Comment I'm in favour of this but not voting as this is my proposal, I would personally count all support for the proposal to use this for software version numbering as support for this but I would prefer to make support explicit for the removal of specific constraints as otherwise it is too open to interpretation. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:36, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Strong support, as I expressed 1 year ago. Amadalvarez (talk) 11:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Property use[edit]
This property is mainly used for the next cases:
- edition of a book
- edition of an event
Edition / Auflage / Édition[edit]
- Description: Number of the edition (first ed., special ed. etc.)
- Datatype: ?
- Links:
- Infobox parameter example:
- Comments: Basic bibliographic info. --Kolja21 (talk) 01:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
- What´s the difference between Number of Edition and Edition number mentioned above?--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 12:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think the difference is that this is actual number of the edition of the single book (as an item). EG: second edition of The trial. Number of edition is the toatl number of these editions (eg. 35). I don't think that "Number of edition" is useful, because it is likely to change over the time (editions just increase).
Support --Aubrey (talk) 09:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Datatype[edit]
Use string datatype because we don't need numeric one: no uncertainty, no unit, no conversion. String can do the work with a very simple property. Snipre (talk) 01:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Edition of an event[edit]
Can this property be used in the context of events as well? Like in en:2008 Wimbledon Championships => "122" or en:17th Congress of the All-Union Communist Party => "17"?--Kompakt (talk) 17:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Yes why not. Snipre (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Very good, thanks. I thought this was a property solely for publications as its German description suggests this. It's also listed under "literature" on the Wikidata:List_of_properties.--Kompakt (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- That was the initial idea but we can modify the scope of one property. Please just modify the description in the languages you know. Snipre (talk) 18:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Very good, thanks. I thought this was a property solely for publications as its German description suggests this. It's also listed under "literature" on the Wikidata:List_of_properties.--Kompakt (talk) 18:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- No why yes. In Russian this notions have no word in common. Don't be english-oriented. Infovarius (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
- Seconded. I'm having trouble translating this into Estonian. There's no label that would make sense for both of these distinct uses. I suggest returing to original scope and introducing a separate property for other uses. 90.191.81.65 15:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
- series ordinal (P1545) seems to fit better, at least in English events are part of a series, while an edition of a document or software can be a tree expressed as a non-ordinal, eg patch 2.3.4 released after major release 3. Events have a much simpler progression. An edition of the Olympics sounds wrong. I note that 2012 Summer Olympics (Q8577) has a warning because the sequence number is a qualifier to an instance, that only allows series ordinal. Putting the sequence number, follows, followed etc as top-level items to avoid the warnings seems to weaken the concept of an item in a tight sequence. Vicarage (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Name change request[edit]
This property refers to "edition number", and it should be named as such. Once renamed, it will be necessary to create a new property with datatype item which will be used to link item-works with items representing translations or editions.--Micru (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- No, we have stated in (P248) for link between items. This property is used to define the edition number in the item. Snipre (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- If, as you say, this property is used to define the edition number in the item, then it should be called "edition number", otherwise it is confusing.--Micru (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is an English problem: in French and in German there is no possible confusion about the definition of the property. Snipre (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Changed.--Micru (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Restored DE. --Succu (talk) 20:29, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Changed.--Micru (talk) 20:19, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- It is an English problem: in French and in German there is no possible confusion about the definition of the property. Snipre (talk) 16:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
- Guidelines for References calls for proposed properties 'edition' and 'edition of' to be used to link between the WD pages for books and for editions of that book. stated in (P248) is used to link source statements to books or editions.
- This 'edition number' property with data type string, can be used to link to editions which don't have their own WD page. Filceolaire (talk) 20:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
- If, as you say, this property is used to define the edition number in the item, then it should be called "edition number", otherwise it is confusing.--Micru (talk) 12:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Qualifier[edit]
I suggest that this property could also be used as a qulifier in items about literary works, perhaps together with a qualifier language of work or name (P407). In some wikis, there is a tradition to show ISBN (OCLC, or whatsoever) of the first edition in infoboxes, or simply one of editions in a given language. It was imported to Wikidata as simply "ISBN", and because of that we had an English ISBN in infobox here, which was quite silly. Danneks (talk) 09:05, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
- Oh, I see, it has already been discussed :) Danneks (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Having property prompted?[edit]
What is the means to have this property prompted when adding version, edition or translation (Q3331189). I get other property options presented that are quite unlikely and would appreciate this one being presented as it is one that I overlook. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Then you should add it more, it's based on usage. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Deprecate in favour of series ordinal (P1545) and (book editon) and other properties[edit]
"Edition of the book" usually means that the same book was updated and corrected with better variant.
Rarely it is opposite: earlier edition is better.
Edition of the book is semantically closer to software version identifier (P348) in Wikidata property related to software (Q21126229) than to series ordinal (P1545) (or ordinal number (Q191780)).
- versions, editions, ... multiple versions/editions are possible
- simple/single ordinal number in collection (series ordinal (P1545))
d1g (talk) 21:29, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Personally, I noticed its use on events the other day and found it convenient. Contrary to P1545, it can be added directly on items for specific editions of events (e.g. 50th Venice Film Festival). There isn't much of any ambiguity of what it refers to.
- I don't have much of view on its used on books/editions. The structure for these probably needs some work anyways. Maybe this property could be limited to events.
--- Jura 22:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)- > Contrary to P1545 ...
- I would drop Constraint:Qualifier for series ordinal (P1545)} so we can use it with items. But I'm not sure if it is a good move. d1g (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Use for software?[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Informatics/Software
What about using it to indicate the software version number of the item? It would be different from "software version" because the latter is used to list all the versions of a software, while this property would be used directly on the item about a particular software version. Something like this: Firefox 3.6 (Q2615631)edition number (P393)3.6 --Malore (talk) 03:42, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Malore This is an interesting proposition. John Samuel 08:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Not thinking of any cons OdileB (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
- Support. Also in support of this. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 23:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Malore, Jsamwrites, OdileB: partially
Done: I changed the description and constraints to allow instance of (P31)software version (Q20826013). The other change that is needed but not explicitly mentioned here is a change of constraints. I will take that up independently. Iwan.Aucamp (talk) 11:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Roman numerals[edit]
This property should accept Roman numerals (Q38918). May, someone, change the constraint to avoid the errors ?. Thanks, Amadalvarez (talk) 09:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
Non-numeric edition name?[edit]
Some books call themselves "Updated Edition" or "New Edition" instead of "2nd Edition". If I let "Updated" be this property's value, it will be a constraint error. Should I ignore the error or is there a separate property for these cases? 朝彦/Asahiko (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
- Could you give an example? ISBN? OCLC number? In my country there is also edition number somewhere, if the edition is marked as updated or modified, so maybe in this case there is edition number somewhere or at least in other databases there is a clue how to describe this situation. With 'new edition', are we sure it's still edition of the same book, not a new book that should not be described as an edition? Wostr (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Include Book Series as valid entities for this property[edit]
Some book series are re-published as new editions in their entirety (for instance the European Garden Flora was re-published in a new format for all 5 volumes simultaneously in 2011). Semudobia (talk) 14:27, 8 September 2021 (UTC)