Wikidata:Property proposal/Digital representation of

digital representation of

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Sister projects

   Done: digital representation of (P6243) (Talk and documentation)

Description	this is a faithful digitized representation of the indicated two-dimensional artwork
Data type	Item
Template parameter	c:template:Artwork's wikidata parameter
Domain	Q223557
Allowed values	specific artworks, artifacts and other museum holdings, as well as movies, or music compositions
Example 1	Structured Data for → Mona Lisa (Q12418)
Example 2	Structured Data for → The Starry Night (Q45585)
Source	One of the properties needed for Structured Data on Commons project.
Planned use	by Structured Data on Commons
See also	depicts (P180)

Motivation

The property will be used to specify that a given file is a digital representation of. Related to depicts (P180), as a file might have large number of specific and generic depicts (P180) properties, it should only have a single Digital representation of property pointing to an item for specific object Jarekt (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support I lower-cased the English property label as we usually do in Wikidata - however I'm wondering if Commons might want their properties handled differently? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

ArthurPSmith We are kind of in uncharted territory. Most of the properties which will be used on Commons Structured data already exist on Wikidata, Some others that will need to be created will be useful on Wikidata, for example license modeling, and only a handful of properties seems like will not be useful on Wikidata at all. I do not think we need to create alternative property approval system for the few Commons-only properties. --Jarekt (talk) 03:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

•  Question are we sure this would work with item datatype? --- Jura 10:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Nevermind. I thought it was in the opposite direction. --- Jura 10:24, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment Worth noting that the draft c:Commons:Structured_data/Properties_table still shows depicts (P180) being used for this; the question also appears to be being touched on (without clear resolution so far) at c:Commons_talk:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/Statements_2, eg 1, 2, with a wider discussion of how to handle derivative works more generally (and works that contain a derivative element).

I am broadly sympathetic to the case being made for this property; but I feel that the discussion of the principle behind this proposal needs to be made much closer to the main discussion pages for the project on Commons, not tucked away here on Wikidata. Until that discussion on Commons has been resolved, with a much clearer idea of the direction the community wants to go with for data modelling in this area, in my opinion the time may not yet be ripe for a property proposal discussion here on Wikidata.

If/when we do move to property creation, I think some usage aspects need to be more clearly spelled out. Firstly, where would the dividing line be between this and depicts (P180) ? For example, consider the following:

Should all of these be "digital representation" of Mona Lisa (Q12418) ? Should any of them?

What about 'remastered' or otherwise adjusted versions?

Does is make a difference if the digital modification has been made by a Wiki editor, or by an external source?

Second question: what about sculptures and three-dimensional works? In my view, this proposed property should not be used for images of such works, but only where there is a more direct congruence between image and original -- ie where any image that was a faithful digital representation of the original would necessarily look very like the image we are describing.

Third issue: what sort of items should be encouraged for the property to point to? For example, for an engraving or print there may be various different FRBR levels -- the set of all variants of the print; or a particular state or edition of the print; or a particular copy of a particular state of the print. Should we be encouraging people to create distinct refined Wikidata items if there is more than one image of a print, taken from different copies? Similarly, if we have multiple recordings of a song, should we be encouraging people to (create if necessary) and link to an item for a particular artist's cover of a song; or even a particular performance of it? All of this needs further consideration and clarification, I think. Jheald (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Jheald you are raising many issues, so let me try to address them separately:

• in my mind the difference between depicts (P180) and this property is that a file can be associated with only a single Digital representation of property. You provided several image examples and I am not sure at which point I would switch from Digital representation of property to depicts (P180) property. Maybe if it makes sense to use c:template:Artwork or c:template:Art photo on Commons as opposed to c:template:Information

(got to run. I will fining later.) --Jarekt (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt: can we split up this proposal into two properties?

1. First one is narrow the scope of the property to that of the PD-Art template (see also PD-art help page). Label of the property would be something "faithful photographic reproduction of a two-dimensional, public domain work of art" (of course shortened to something...). That would mean for me that for art uploads I can almost completely switch to structured data (haven't figured out source yet). See for example Commons:File:Henri Rousseau - The Eiffel Tower - 98.299 - Museum of Fine Arts.jpg. The artwork template could use this new property to fetch the Wikidata item, see that the copyright status is public domain and also add the PD-art license template. In cases like Commons:File:Workshop of Rogier van der Weyden - Virgin and Child - 1933.1052 - Art Institute of Chicago.jpg, the structured data would contain the local cc-zero license and this new property to generate the equivalent of Template:Licensed-PD-Art. So I see all the nice edge cases on this page. We're having the PD-art discussion people are having on Commons for 10+ years, but now it's just in a more structured form.
2. We're not going to solve it, but we do need to offer the different possibilities like now with different templates. So for the more general case we can create another property "includes work" to indicate that a work (file) on Commons includes another work. That would work on all the previous examples on this page (including the one I just gave), but could have a much broader scope and for example also be linked for buildings like Grote-Kerk-Haarlem.jpg. This would also open up a clean way to handle Freedom of panorama and De minimis. Take for example 1. Atomium. Laeken-Bruksela 02.jpg of the (copyrighted) Atomium (Q180901), it would use the new includes work property and it would be qualified by some property to indicate it's covered by FOP.

This creates a cleaner more flexible model. Multichill (talk) 14:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Multichill, so this proposal would cover the first case. The second case is currently handled by depicts (P180), see for example The Tribuna of the Uffizi (Q7840471). I think there might be issues with depicts (P180), which does not distinguish between generic and specific objects. I guess it would be possible to indicate copyrights for different specific copyrightable objects listed using depicts (P180). --Jarekt (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The current proposal is not what I'm suggesting. Are you willing to amend it? Multichill (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Multichill, I am fine with amending this proposal. In the end I just would like to have something equivalent to c:template:Artwork's "wikidata" parameter, to be used by structured data on Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 14:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

 Support I like the suggestion by Multichill to create two properties, that are different from depicts (P180), where this specific property could cover the faithful representation of 2D artworks. (Although I don't fully see why this should only be used for public domain works?) Then we'd have another property that is akin to 'includes work'. I think it's very useful to generally distinguish depicted artworks from other depicted things, because artworks are really a special case of intricately described entities with their own copyright complexities, that we might want to show in a different way than 'regular' depicted things, and make searchable in a specific way (e.g filtering by creator, collection, genre... at some point). Spinster 💬 15:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• I modified the description to be more specific, and marked as ready... ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Hold on, the whole 2D part is missing in the update. Did you forget that or is that intentional? The third example would also need a replacement. Multichill (talk) 21:37, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Multichill: Not intentional, just trying to keep the description brief and I wasn't sure how solid that requirement was. I've added two-dimensional. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @ArthurPSmith: thanks. The reason is to make it fit with the PD-art system. So no new system, just modelling the current system as structured data. We should probably propose the broader property (includes work) to cover the whole range. Multichill (talk) 22:00, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@Jarekt, ArthurPSmith, Multichill, Jheald, Jura1:  Done: digital representation of (P6243). − Pintoch (talk) 07:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)