Property talk:P2378
Documentation
organisation or other agent that issues or allocates an identifier, code, classification number, etc.
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2378#Value type Q43229, Q35127, Q5, Q4164871, Q22222786, Q2659904, Q170584, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2378#Type Q853614, Q43812, Q47988, Q79719, Q374814, Q116026794, Q253623, Q47433, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2378#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P2378#Entity types
![]() |
This property is being used by: Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
Use for property
[edit]Hi,
There is several constraint violation when issued by (P2378) is itself used on a property (issue raised by Manu1400). I suggest to replace {{Constraint:Type|class=Q1773882|relation=instance}} by {{Constraint:Type|classes=Q1773882,Q19847637|relation=instance}} to include properties. Is is right?
@Thryduulf, Pigsonthewing, Laddo, Jarekt, Strakhov, Fnielsen: as requestor and top users of this property (according to NavelGazer), what do you think?
Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Looks good to me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- Wikidata property for an identifier (Q19847637) is also OK, I believe. -- LaddΩ chat ;) 21:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
- No objection from me. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Done (and as always, feel free to revert if it isn't right). Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 17:05, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
- No objection from me. Thryduulf (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
subject type constraint
[edit]boxed warning (Q879952) seems to be a valid exception to this constraint. I can't find a more appropriate property, also warning label (Q10713132) class seems to be valid and no class specified in 'subject type constraint' can be applied here. Wostr (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Include patents to "subject type constraint"
[edit]Despite being recommended by the Patents project, the current "subject type constraint" of "issued by" doesn't include "patent" (Q253623). If this doesn't raise objections, I will happily add it, since it would seem to conform to the description of this property ("organisation or other agent that issues or allocates an identifier, code, classification number, etc.") and Patents project's stance. Solarius (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
- Made this change, as there were no objections voiced 👍 Solarius (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Semantically it makes more sense that this property is placed on external identifier items and not properties and this was agreed upon in https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Project_chat/Archive/2022/12#Creation_of_items_for_all_external_identifier_identifers . Really it's "Wikidata" that issues properties.
Therefore I would like to move all the current uses to their EID items and remove this constraint. Fine?
@Swpb Lectrician1 (talk) 01:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- No, please do not do that. I think this property is and has always been the correct one to link external ID properties to the issuers of those IDs. It's certainly more appropriate for that role then P1629, which I thought you wanted to clear out anyway. It can certainly link Q items for IDs to the issuers as well. I think the concern that Wikidata issues properties is a little hair-splitty, and could easily be addressed with a property instruction that says that, when used on ID-datatype properties, "issued by" means the issuer of the ID the property refers to, not the Wikidata property itself (if such clarification is really needed; I tend to think it's not). Swpb (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- But then the property makes 2 different relationships and is conflated:
- 1. If on a EID property, the property's value is issued by "issued by"'s value.
- 2. If on an EID item, the item is issued by "issued by"'s value.
- This is really bothersome to me. We shouldn't have properties that make 2 different realtionships. That's like having a "loves" property that indicates what an entity "loves" and "likes".
- This seems like we're just preserving the status quo for the sake of it. Lectrician1 (talk) 17:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)