Wikidata:Property proposal/in service of
in service of[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic
| Description | qualifier, which must be used when a person is in the service of a settlement or institution through his or her position |
|---|---|
| Data type | Item |
| Domain | administrative territorial entity (Q56061), Prague (Q1085) |
| Example 1 | position held (P39): deputy mayor (Q581817) in service of Timișoara (Q83404) |
| Example 2 | P39: lord-lieutenant of a county (Q29865383) in service of Beszterce-Naszód County (Q794129) |
| Example 3 | P39: undersecretary (Q766504) in service of Federal Ministry of Health of Germany (Q491566) |
| Example 4 | P39: military attaché (Q302691) in service of Embassy of the United States, Athens (Q5369951) |
| Example 5 | P39: head of department (Q1207353) in service of TCDD Subdivision 1 (Q382773) |
| Example 6 | P39: sheriff (Q578478) in service of Hancock County (Q493112) |
| See also | occupation (P106), represents (P1268) |
Motivation[edit]
I propose to create this qualifier to partially replace the significantly overloaded of (P642): in the service of this.
It can primarily be used as a qualifier for position held (P39) if the position is held by a person in the service of a settlement or organization. In these cases, P642 should be replaced.
Why not an employer (P108)?. In a significant part of the cases, it is a relationship in which the employer is different, and the entity in whose service the person holding the public office is different. For example: the employer of a member of parliament is the office of the parliament, while he is in service of by an administrative unit (e.g. district, county, state). An administrative unit can have a locally elected leader (e.g. mayor, council chairman, etc.) and a leader appointed by the state (government, king, etc.) (governor, prefect, etc.) the two persons are employees of different institutions, but in practice the given is at the service of the population of the administrative unit. On the other hand, an administrative unit cannot be an employer, as it is a geographical concept. The employer is an institution created for the administration of this unit, or one of its organizations. The head of a department or department is employed by the company, but works for that company department/division. If we entered the employer, it would not be revealed which department the person works as a manager.
Why not an represents (P1268)? For two reasons: on the one hand, because not all positions mean permanent official representation. For example, a For example, a deputy director, deputy mayor, etc. has a well-defined job description, which may not include the fact that he can represent the organization or settlement he serves. It is conceivable that this authorization is only for the duration of the obstruction of the actual director. For example:
- Mayor: represents (P1268) Prague
- deputy mayor represents (P1268)Prague
These two statements cannot be interpreted at the same time, since the city can only have one representative at a time. But so:
- mayor "in the service of this": Prague
- deputy mayor "in the service of this": Prague
...it might be true. The same can cause conflicts in many other positions (e.g. minister, state secretary, deputy state secretary or director, deputy director, etc.)
The other reason is that P1268 is basically designed for organizations, but a settlement (administrative unit) is not an organization. An organization can only be an institution established for the administration of the settlement (local government, city council).
Further information: Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Data_Quality/Issues/P642
Pallor (talk) 14:57, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Discussion[edit]
Notified participants of WikiProject Data Quality Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 16:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't entirely follow or buy your arguments against employer (P108) and represents (P1268). It seems to me that an administrative territorial entity (Q56061) can employ someone. Also, I don't see anything in represents (P1268) that says the relationship it describes must be permanent or unique to one person. I'll wait to see what others think before I vote. I'd also encourage you to edit your comments for brevity, out of respect for the reader. Swpb (talk) 17:25, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
- Swpb Let's turn it around, maybe you will understand it this way: can you name a person whose employer is a administration unit? Pallor (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
- Regards. I am here, because I was precisely looking for something of the kind, to describe a current situation in French academia. There is an employer (paying the salary, deciding about promotions, and more generally the career) and there is the place where the person works or does research which is usually a laboratory/an own entity which may depend on several institutions (including in general the employer, but perhaps others, etc). Thus, I like the idea of having something different from "employed by". But I must say, I have a problem with the denomination, because "in service of" describes a specific type of relation. In my case, "attached to" or even "workplace" (if this could be an institution or administrative entity and not a town or country or geographical, which again is something different) would be better. --Cgolds (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
- @Swpb,@Cgolds,,@Pallor@ZI Jonyː I don't know how staff serving a royal court in a constitutional monarchy is employed, but I imagine that staff may include a personal secretary to the queen consort, in which case that staff member would hold the position of secretary in service of this queen without necessarily being employed by the queen herself, hencethedistnction from employer (P108),likewise, the secretary does not "represent" the queen; that verb is only valid in a select few roles, specifically not the roles of auditor, accountant or hairdresser.--SM5POR (talk) 10:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Regards. I am here, because I was precisely looking for something of the kind, to describe a current situation in French academia. There is an employer (paying the salary, deciding about promotions, and more generally the career) and there is the place where the person works or does research which is usually a laboratory/an own entity which may depend on several institutions (including in general the employer, but perhaps others, etc). Thus, I like the idea of having something different from "employed by". But I must say, I have a problem with the denomination, because "in service of" describes a specific type of relation. In my case, "attached to" or even "workplace" (if this could be an institution or administrative entity and not a town or country or geographical, which again is something different) would be better. --Cgolds (talk) 11:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Oppose I'm not sure that this new property would really solve the use of of (P642), as I expect in the end that each position will have its own item, rendering this property only transitory. IMO this is just moving the problem around and adding one more way to model positions, which will complicates queries. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 07:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
- As I cameup with the idea forthis qualifier long ago, I'msorry thatI didn't payattention to this recent discussion(my life has been severely disrupted over the past year, forcing me to focus on other things than Wikidata), each position (such as the head of a particular organization or the CEO ofa corporation) need not have its own item. The position may be a generic one, say CEO, leaving the corporation unspecified. Since a big organization may have multiple positions to be filled, it doesn't seem practical to create an item for each one of them,fromthe CEO, viathe auditor, to the chief receptionist, when youcan have items for the generic roles and use "in service of" to specify the organization in each case. Initially, there may be a lot of overlap with existing combined items such as President of a named country, but the idea is to stop creating such combined items and replacethemwith these qualified "position held" / "in service of" statements; the"combining point" isthus moved from the item tothe claim.--SM5POR (talk) 10:28, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Not done, no support for creation. Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:56, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
