Property talk:P6379

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

has works in the collection
collection that has works of this person or organisation (use archives at [P485] for archives)
Data typeItem
Domainhuman (Q5), group of humans (Q16334295), organization (Q43229), photographic studio (Q672070) or factory (Q83405)
Usage notesuse when an organisation has creative works of this person or organisation in their collection. use archives at [P485] for archives of this person or organisation. for libraries to be used for the special collection with unique books only.
ExampleGerrit de Wilde (Q59700806) → Museum Flehite (Q29908492)
M. Zwartser (Q60268368) → North Holland Archives (Q2200595)
Piet Mondrian (Q151803) → Kunstmuseum Den Haag (Q1499958)
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P6379 (Q116185641)
See alsoarchives at (P485), collection creator (P6241), exhibition history (P608), collection (P195), collection or exhibition size (P1436), personal library at (P9419), oral history at (P9600), collection items at (P11146)
Lists
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses
Total428,914
Main statement428,885>99.9% of uses
Qualifier18<0.1% of uses
Reference11<0.1% of uses
Search for values
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6379#Value type Q2668072, Q166118, Q33506, Q17312283, Q88667167, Q15090615, Q464980, Q7075, Q26271642, SPARQL
This property is being used by:

Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

 
Properties relating to museums
General
Identifiers of museums
Identifiers of museum objects
Other

Some queries

[edit]

@Hannolans:

The creators and the number of has works in the collection (P6379) statements they should have: 

SELECT ?creator (COUNT(DISTINCT(?collection)) AS ?count) WHERE {
  ?painting wdt:P31 wd:Q3305213 . 
  ?painting wdt:P195 ?collection .
  ?painting wdt:P170 ?creator .
  } GROUP BY ?creator
ORDER BY DESC(?count)
LIMIT 500
Try it!

The missing has works in the collection (P6379) statements: 

SELECT DISTINCT ?creator ?collection WHERE {
  ?painting wdt:P31 wd:Q3305213 . 
  ?painting wdt:P195 ?collection .
  ?painting wdt:P170 ?creator .
  MINUS { ?creator wdt:P6379 ?collection } . 
  } ORDER BY ?creator ?collection
Try it!

Beware that I didn't do any filtering for special cases like "unkown value", "novalue", anonymous (Q4233718) and private collection (Q768717). Multichill (talk) 16:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now do you want to add 190 statements to Vincent van Gogh (Q5582)? I think I rather oppose this and might even prefer this property to be deleted if it's intended to be used like this. Then, Pigsonthewing in the proposal discussion was right. Do we have any figures how much the performance advantage of those “cached” would be for some realistic example queries? Figures are crucial for those considerations. Do we need to query this data with Lua somewhere? In my eyes there is already enough stuff where maintenance doesn't keep up and it's preferable not to create even more. --Marsupium (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
190 items? No, we are just adding the most relevant museums to artists. The main reason of this property is that we know were in which other museums those artists are, notably photographers and designers, for example Pierre Petit (Q55070601) .--Hannolans (talk) 19:43, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This property is very useful as GLAMs will use this property to do lookups and add license information related to that artist and museum. Should we create a limit to let say the top 10 collections with the most works of an artist? --Hannolans (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Hannolans: Most relevant museums? That's very subjective. How would you determine that? Sounds a bit like notable work (P800). At least with that one we can have a look at the number of sitelinks. Here we could have a major museum with just one important work and a minor museum with a bunch of works from not the most notable period of an artist.
And your contradicting yourself by these kind of edits. Multichill (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, for copyright information we need a dataset of artists in museums for lookups. When we have a base set of museums we can start comparing. If one museum display the work of an artist online and another not, one of them has a license, or there is a difference in jurisdiction (MoMA versus Tate), another interpretation, or one of them made a mistake. This was one of the outcomes with testing for Boijmans. They check regularly the copyright of Tate. Some museums also display information about the right holders. If so, we can use this for correction or licenses. We can also compare the copyright policy of that artist with our images we have on Commons. So, we are not interested in all the museums with Van Gogh, but certain museums that have a professional license policy and artists in multiple collections. But that is our perspective. I know that art historians are interested in all museums that have work of an artist. If we start adding that, it would be helpful to add collectiegrootte and other information --Hannolans (talk) 16:15, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about archaeological sites

[edit]

WikiProject Cultural heritage has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. Hi all! I was discussing with JBradyK what to do in the following case: objects excavated in Eutresis (Q1378952) (probably not encyclopedic singularly, otherwise collection (P195) is fine) are in Archaeological Museum of Thebes (Q637075). To model such a relationship would you advise adapting this property extending type constraint besides humans or creating a new property? Thank you all, --Epìdosis 12:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify the question please Epìdosis? Are you asking how to datamodel the concept that "this specific object was excavated at this particular archaeological excavation site"? Or, are you asking how to datamodel the concept that "this series of objects are all now in the collection of a specific archaeological museum's collection"? Or, something else? Wittylama (talk) 12:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wittylama: "The objects excavated in this archaeological site are all now in the collection of a specific museum". --Epìdosis 12:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so yes. I think that this property is a sensible use for that statement. If we take the way this property is used on the item for Rembrandt, for example: Q5598#P6379, It shows that you can use the qualifier collection or exhibition size (P1436) to specify what kind of things, and how many, went to that museum. So... for Eutresis (Q1378952), you could have "Statement: has works in the collection (P6379) -> Archaeological Museum of Thebes (Q637075), with Qualifier: collection or exhibition size (P1436) -> 1,000 ostracon (Q834459), 23 mosaic (Q133067)... etc." . Wittylama (talk) 12:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wittylama: Very good. However, this property at the moment has a constraint limiting its use to humans: would you agree to add archaeological site (Q839954) to the type constraint? --Epìdosis 12:51, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that I agree with you. But, I wouldn't recommend you take me alone as a consensus support :-) Wittylama (talk) 19:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal is interesting and it seems it would be useful to make the relation. In addition to the property constraint change, it should be performed the change of the label in some languages because it specify that are works by an artist (like in the Spanish and Portuguese labels). Regards, Ivanhercaz (Talk) 02:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

inverse use

[edit]

this property links to an entity page that describes what is asserted to be the inverse property (pinging @Moebeus: as the entity creator), but is not actually linked to any property with a 'wikidata property' statement. How should it be expressed that an entity collects works by such-and-such creators (or as above, from such-and-such sites)? Arlo Barnes (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Arlo Barnes:
Hi there! Are you referring to contains work(s) by ? If yes, this is simply a meta item, specifically an inverse property label item that works with the gadget relateditems which "Adds a button to the bottom of item pages to display inverse statements." So part of the UI, not an item to be otherwise be used. Moebeus (talk) 19:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so it encourages simply calculating from this property? It would be nice to make it a first-class citizen, but I'm not sure I want to start another property proposal at this moment. Arlo Barnes (talk) 19:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expand use: has works in the collection or exhibition

[edit]

I would propose that we expand the use to "has works in the collection or exhibition". This would parallel collection or exhibition size (P1436).--Pharos (talk) 17:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Property_talk:P6379&oldid=2186086306"