Wikidata:Property proposal/is fake of
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
is fake of[edit]
Return to Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
Under discussion
| Description | the kind (class) of elements this item falsifies / is a fake for |
|---|---|
| Represents | fake (Q22959676) |
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | forgery (Q1332286) feint (Q427117) forgery (Q1332286) … all kind of fakes |
| Allowed values | class (Q16889133) |
| Example 1 | |
| Example 2 | |
| Example 3 | |
| See also | forgery after (P1778)  simulates (P12328) |
| Distinct-values constraint | yes |
Motivation[edit]
We need a model for modeling fakes, forgery or feints, this is an attempt to advance in this field. Not top priority of course but nice to have I think. author TomT0m / talk page 18:52, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Support I can see how this would be useful in a number of entries. --Fordaemdur (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment Some overlap with simulates (P12328)? -wd-Ryan (Talk/Edits) 22:44, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Wd-Ryan I did not know about this property, thanks. Maybe yes, but the "trickery/deception" dimension seems absent of "simulate". Nobody would say that a special effect in a movie.
- There also seems to be a fundamental difference between something that simulates a situation (truck simulator) in a virtual world and something that is intended to replace by fulfilling the same function, and a virtual simulation with no consequence in the real world besides learning and entropy increase. author TomT0m / talk page 08:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I don't think there's enough difference from simulates (P12328) to justify a new property. That the purpose of a particular simulation may be to trick or deceive can be stated separately, with e.g. has goal (P3712), where relevant. Likewise for the physical/virtual nature of the simulation, which will in most cases be established by the basic membership properties. Swpb (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb I think the "artificial heart" is not a question of physical nature or not, it's a question of "fulfills the role of", it's not at all like an exercise. It's the same difference as a drône that would fulfils the same role as a soldier in a battlefield, we would not say that the drone "simulates" a soldier. It would just be a weapon.
- for objectif du projet ou de la mission (P3712) I think usually just using instance of (P31) / subclass of (P279) is usually enough, for example play-action (Q1734020) is just a kind of pass play disguised.
- I also still thinks that the (trickery) intention is not trivial to infer. If it's a subclass of "fake" it may be queried like this but … objectif du projet ou de la mission (P3712) : trickery is convoluted and not a better model, and also there might be a lot of inconsistent ways to express this information. Maybe using several properties in an unclear way to convoy a well identify nuance in the meaning to spare the existence of a property is not a good tradeoff. author TomT0m / talk page 20:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
- In your reply to wd-Ryan, it seemed to me you were looking to use a physical vs. virtual distinction to separate this proposal from simulates (P12328). If you want to express that something is intended to take the role of something else, I'd use replaces (P1365). As to the purpose of trickery, you're right that P31/P279 will generally be enough to infer trickery, without resorting to has goal (P3712) – but to me, that strengthens the case against a new "is fake of" property, since the presence of a P31/P279 statement implying trickery removes the need to express that nefarious intent with a property that is otherwise the same as simulates (P12328). To me, the reason why you are simulating something – to replace something, to teach someone, to trick someone, etc. – is a separate bit of information from what you are simulating, and trying to capture them in the same property is not good modeling. Swpb (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb No, I don't think so. Think that you can fake something in a sport simulation video game … It's actually two different dimensions.
- "Replaces" is definitely not a good property for that. Imagine if a fake doctor replaces your real doctor for a while ? author TomT0m / talk page 17:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- With replaces (P1365), I was thinking of your drone/soldier example. At this point I don't understand what case you are making for this proposal; I need to see specific examples where you think the existing properties are not sufficient. Swpb (talk) 19:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- In your reply to wd-Ryan, it seemed to me you were looking to use a physical vs. virtual distinction to separate this proposal from simulates (P12328). If you want to express that something is intended to take the role of something else, I'd use replaces (P1365). As to the purpose of trickery, you're right that P31/P279 will generally be enough to infer trickery, without resorting to has goal (P3712) – but to me, that strengthens the case against a new "is fake of" property, since the presence of a P31/P279 statement implying trickery removes the need to express that nefarious intent with a property that is otherwise the same as simulates (P12328). To me, the reason why you are simulating something – to replace something, to teach someone, to trick someone, etc. – is a separate bit of information from what you are simulating, and trying to capture them in the same property is not good modeling. Swpb (talk) 15:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I don't see the distinction between this and simulates. Almost all (if not all) types of fakery in a sporting sense is when someone simulates doing something, but does something else. (Hidden ball trick, diving, etc.) Have you got any examples of something where "simulates" doesn't cover it? Lee Vilenski (talk) 14:23, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Lee Vilenski : my problem is actually, how do you convey the trickery sense with simulates. A fire truck simulation is not a trickery, but could also use the property you propose. But the intension behind the truck simulation is totally genuine. That's the nuance I want to convey and I did not see yet a simple way to express it.
- A more convoluted way could be with queries and inferences :
if the action is a subclass of run play but simulates a pass play and "an action cannot be at the same time a run play and a pass play" …(we can do the last one using "disjoint union of") or by classifying as both a subclass of "fake / trickery" and "run play" at the same time, but none of these models are simple. - (also reading about this hidden ball trick it seems it can involve the simple masking of the player to confuse the defense about where it is going, it's then not necessarily a trickery about simulating a kind of action by another kind of action, it can be the same action in a different direction ? You simulate a pass but you actually do a pass ? ) author TomT0m / talk page 14:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)