Wikidata:Property proposal/has role
has role
[edit]| Description | the role of an item in a certain context or ontology |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | generic |
| Allowed values | items which define the role of the subject item |
| Example | vemurafenib (Q423111) → antineoplastic (Q23987513) |
| Source | any, ontological relationships, e.g. from OBO |
| Robot and gadget jobs | ProteinBoxBot might use this property to establish ontological relations from OBO. |
- Motivation
A 'has role' property should be used as a generalized property in order to represent statements about an item fulfilling or having (a) certain role(s). This 'has role' relation is used in many ontologies, which is a clear sign that such a relation is needed to meaningfully represent knowledge. 'Has role' has been defined in the relations ontology as http://purl.obolibrary.org/obo/RO_0000087 and is being used in 25 other ontologies, showing the scale of its usage (clicking on the purl will bring you to an overview of where it is used). Existing properties like subclass of (P279) and instance of (P31) do not properly represent what 'has role' is meant for, as subclass of (P279) maps to 'is a' and instance of (P31) represents more a data type or class instance of an item, not so much the role of an item, because it maps to http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#type. Sebotic (talk) 19:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject Ontology has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
WikiProject Molecular_biology has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.
Notified participants of WikiProject Chemistry
Notified participants of WikiProject Medicine
@Emw:
- Discussion
- I'll cautiously
Support this proposal, although I would like some examples from other fields than the fairly specialized (and hard to understand for the layman) field of biochemistry(?) --Srittau (talk) 21:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Srittau: For more examples, please see below. I think the role of a person in a certain setting is a good example, making it a multipurpose property. Sebotic (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Could you explain the difference between this proposal and has use (P366)? --Yair rand (talk) 22:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Yair rand: The reason to propose the property instead of has use (P366) is that semantically, 'use' implies an active application of the entity by somebody/something. But a 'has role' property could also imply any passive function in a certain context. For my example give above, I would agree that both has use (P366) and a 'has role' property could be used. But for a person fulfilling a certain role (investigator, commander in a certain operation), the property has use (P366) seems awkward. E.g. George S. Patton (Q186492) is missing the info that he was the commander for some operations in WWII, this can currently not properly be represented in Wikidata without a 'has role' property (occupation (P106) or position held (P39) represent something different). Sebotic (talk) 01:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I read the definition in the page of the ontology, seems reasonably defined. If the class of elements is involved into a set of events defined by the object, then it seems very useful. author TomT0m / talk page 08:21, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
Question how does this relate to P794 (P794) (which has "has role" as an alias in English)? Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 12:31, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- @Thryduulf: The use of P794 (P794) is restricted to usage in qualifiers only, which, in my opinion makes sense and should stay that way. What makes these 'qualifier only' properties very valuable is the fact that you can specify and then SPARQL query a certain relationship in a very granular fashion. Sebotic (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
- SupportI think this is an important predicate that would be useful in many domains Putmantime (talk) 21:57, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support --I9606 (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
@Sebotic, Yair rand, TomT0m, Thryduulf: moved into subpage --Srittau (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support after consideration. We should probably make it clear in the description that this is not character role (P453) Thryduulf (talk: local | en.wp | en.wikt) 17:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support This would modeling quite some relationship in different domains possible --Andrawaag (talk) 19:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support It is a widely used relations in the world of biomedical ontologies. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Emitraka (talk • contribs).
@Sebotic, TomT0m, Srittau, Putmantime, Thryduulf, Andrawaag:
Done subject has role (P2868) -- Lymantria (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2016 (UTC)