Wikidata:Property proposal/documents

is proceedings from

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

   Done: is proceedings from (P4745) (Talk and documentation)

Description	this work contains articles presented at the given event
Data type	Item
Domain	publications
Example	Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (Q39502823) is proceedings from → Thirty-first Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Q28052972)
Planned use	modeling conference proceeding references

Motivation

needed to model the relationship between conference proceedings series & conferences; could be used to match an individual conference with an individual conference proceedings volume as well. No other property found includes the idea of "documents." If this is too vague, could go with the proceedings proposal here from Fnielsen for these relationship properties: <is proceedings from>, <is proceedings series from>, <has proceedings>, <has proceeding series>. Phoebe (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

• At the first glance I would be more happy with <is proceedings from>. There's less room for confusion. In case you prefer this name, can you give reasoning for why you prefer this name?
  This also sounds like the kind of relationship for which there might be prior art, have you checked for prior art? ChristianKl (talk) 13:07, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Use main subject (P921). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
  • On reflection, P921 is not appropriate (what if a conference is about the history of an earlier conference?) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:28, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
    • Quantum Theory at the Crossroads (Q47189776) A book about a conference :) — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support though I think "is proceedings from" sounds like a better label - "documents" could be a verb or a noun, seems like it could be easily misinterpreted. As to main subject (P921) I've always thought that was for linking to "topics" (as the description says) - i.e. a conceptual thing, not a specific event like a conference. I don't think that's the solution here. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:40, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
•  Support I (or was it @Dario (WMF):) suggested the four properties. I am surprise that I have overlooked this property suggestion so long. I do not see how main subject (P921) can be used in these cases without abusing the semantics of the property: A conference proceedings are not about the conference, but about the research presented at the conference. Maybe the initial name of the property "documents" was confusing. I think the more specifik name "is proceedings from" is better. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Link to original discussion: [1]. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Not "Dario (WMF)" but @DarTar:. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 18:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment I am not sure that the example is appropriate "is proceedings from" should have the domain proceedings and the property values should be meetings. The example is really for "proceedings series" -> "conference series". May I suggest Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems 30 (Q39502823) <is proceedings from> Thirty-first Conference on Neural Information Processing Systems (Q28052972) as a better example? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment There is another property proposition Wikidata:Property proposal/presented_in. I am wondering whether these two can be merged. John Samuel 20:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support I had also problem to define the relation between proceedings and conferences, and until now I wrote this information into the description field. I like the "is proceedings from" version, because sounds clear in English for me, but I cannot see yet how can I translate/localize it for Hungarian language, where the "from" word is grammatically part or the value. Samat (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
  • What about a Hungarian version of "is proceedings from the conference/meeting"? — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
    • This would work perfectly, but it makes the name of the property longer and unnecessary duplicate the type of the event (conference/meeting). And I can imagine proceedings prepared based on other event than conference and meeting, workshop or congress etc., and we don't want to list all of them in the name. Maybe using only the word "event" or "program" can help on the latter issue. Samat (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Comment I don't object to this property. Some edge cases could be discussed to check: a video from a WikiMania presentation (does it matter whether it's streamed? or not available until after the fact?) A conference paper submitted and published before the event in event proceedings -- which is then revised for a journal special issue (two separate but closely related documents). Archival vs. non-archival papers in proceedings (e.g. ACM SIGCHI conferences; some ACL conferences) -- which may both be "in proceedings" but perhaps in different volumes. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Proceedings from workshops held in conjunction with a conference may be another edge case. An example is The Semantic Web: ESWC 2017 Satellite Events (Q42899642). — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support the same property is in the library cataloging too! Nonoranonqui (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
•  Support The new label 'documents' is apt. John Samuel 21:11, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done JakobVoss (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)