Wikidata:Property proposal/supervisory authority

supervisory authority

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Organization

   Not done

Description	superior authority within the governmental order
Represents	supervisory authority (Q759957)
Data type	Item
Template parameter	"aufsicht" in de:Vorlage:Infobox Deutsche Behörde, "Parent agency" in en:Template:Infobox law enforcement agency, "dependência1" in pt:Predefinição:Info/Organismo governamental, etc.
Domain	Iteminstance of (P31)government agency (Q327333)
Allowed values	Iteminstance of (P31)government agency (Q327333)
Example	Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (Q1875599) → Federal Ministry for Digital and Transport (Q491637) National Historic and Artistic Heritage Institute (Q391537) → Ministry of Culture of Brazil (Q1154004) U.S. Customs and Border Protection (Q368804) → United States Department of Homeland Security (Q11231)
See also	parent organization (P749) (equivalent for privat sector organisations), part of (P361) (currently used, but not quite accurate)

Motivation

Urgently needed to model the relation between several governmental authorities. MB-one (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment I agree with you that it's currently not very convenient to indicate relations between organizations. I think this proposal is a good occasion to review the properties we already have and how to improve them. I am aware of:
  • parent organization (P749) and has subsidiary (P355): it's not clear to me why this should be restricted to the private sector. The English label of parent organization (P749) (currently "parent organization") suggests it could be used for other types of institutions, and it seems that the constraints allow their use on any organization (Q43229). I'm just a bit annoyed by the English label of has subsidiary (P355) which does not feel right outside the private sector.
  • part of (P361) and has part(s) (P527): they are very generic indeed. Should they be allowed on institutions, or should they be replaced by parent organization (P749) and has subsidiary (P355)?
  • sponsor (P859) can be used to indicate the funder of an organization;
  • member of (P463) can be used for looser relations, for instance University of Toronto (Q180865)member of (P463)IIIF Consortium (Q35677307).
• So intuitively I would just propose to adjust parent organization (P749) and has subsidiary (P355) to make them fit your use case. The proposal looks a bit too narrow otherwise. Maybe we could indicate the type role of the parent organization (P749) with a qualifier on the statement? − Pintoch (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
  • After I went through the English aliases of parent organization (P749), I'm actually almost inclined to agree with you there. However every label in another language that I do understand (even slightly) suggests, that parent organization (P749) should be used exclusively for private sector organizations. An old discussion from 2015 supports that view. part of (P361), sponsor (P859) and member of (P463) represent clearly different, albeit somewhat related, concepts of relationship. --MB-one (talk) 13:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Use P749. the orgainal proposal discussion for that property supports such usage. Do not use has subsidiary (P355), as a reciprocal property is unnecessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:56, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: there's an inverse constraint though… I'd be happy to remove it, but it's worth debating I guess. Therefore:

Kopiersperre Jklamo ArthurPSmith S.K. Givegivetake fnielsen rjlabs ChristianKl Vladimir Alexiev Parikan User:Cardinha00 MB-one User:Simonmarch User:Jneubert Mathieudu68 User:Kippelboy User:Datawiki30 User:PKM User:RollTide882071 Andber08 Sidpark SilentSpike Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) User:Johanricher User:Celead User:Finnusertop cdo256 Mathieu Kappler RShigapov User:So9q User:1-Byte pmt Rtnf econterms Dollarsign8 User:Izolight maiki c960657 User:Automotom applsdev Bubalina Fordaemdur

Notified participants of WikiProject Companies

− Pintoch (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I've definitely used P749 for this in the past. However, if there's cultural/linguistic reasons to have a separate property for this I'm ok with that too. Note there is also owned by (P127) that is appropriate for some private-sector hierarchical relations. ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:02, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing:: I don't see, how Wikidata:Property_proposal/Archive/12#P749 supports that usage. However, I could agree to such a solution. But first, we need a consensus to change the scope of parent organization (P749) from the current usage. --MB-one (talk) 09:59, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

marking as  Not done after more than two months of inactivity and no support vote − Pintoch (talk) 16:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)