Property talk:P425
Documentation
field corresponding to this occupation or profession (use only for occupations/professions - for people use Property:P101, for companies use P452)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P425#Type Q12737077, Q28640, Q17305127, Q1914636, Q115580828, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P425#Value type Q11862829, Q1914636, Q9081, Q1756157, Q60733114, Q7406919, Q17524420, Q32859534, Q12737077, Q627436, Q117021501, Q930752, Q1047113, Q2312410, Q115580828, SPARQL
if [item A] has this property (field of this occupation (P425)) linked to [item B],
then [item B] should also have property “practiced by (P3095)” linked to [item A]. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P425#inverse, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P425#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P425#Scope, SPARQL
if [item A] has this property (field of this occupation (P425)) linked to [item B],
then [item A] and [item B] have to coincide or coexist at some point of history. (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P425#Contemporary, SPARQL
|
This property is being used by: Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
Discussion
editUntitled
editDiscussed at Talk:Q28640 (profession).
- Oops. Isn't it the same as P:P101? Infovarius (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- I brought up that possibility (see my last comment on the archive link), but noted that the domain was different (P101 has a person domain). Superm401 - Talk 19:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- By the way, in Wikidata:List of properties this property is described incorrectly. May be to use as typical taxon indeed? Infovarius (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks. Fixed. -- Docu at 18:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Constraint
editCan this be extended to allow not only professions but also occupations, i.e. instances of occupation (Q13516667), too? -- Gymel (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
- I think so. Let's try. --Infovarius (talk) 06:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
- That was not very convincing (diff). I'm changing the template parameter to "subclass" now, perhaps that still includes instances. -- Gymel (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
- @@Infovarius: No, that didn't include instances, thus the report became dramatically worse. Reverted it. -- Gymel (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
- That was not very convincing (diff). I'm changing the template parameter to "subclass" now, perhaps that still includes instances. -- Gymel (talk) 17:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
"Field of" qualifications or degrees?
editDoktor Nauk in Architecture (Q16698078) is neither profession nor occupation, therefore
is not allowed. But certainly Doktor Nauk in Architecture (Q16698078) is strongly related to architecture (Q12271) as a field. Any clues how to denote this? -- Gymel (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
- Similar issue is with hatter (Q1639239)'s relation to hatmaking (Q663375). --Infovarius (talk) 11:47, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- I wouldn't say so: , (where ) and therefore is exactly as intended. -- Gymel (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Occupation or profession?
editItems for people use P106. This has the English label "occupation".
- Sample: Nigel Richards (Q3341367) > occupation > Scrabble player (Q20708269)
If this should be used on such items, should we change the label to "field of this occupation"?
- Sample: Scrabble player (Q20708269) > field of this occupation > Scrabble (Q170436)
How should be proceed? --- Jura 14:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Why can't civil servants work in civil service?
editI don't have the answer but someone evidently does, otherwise there'd be no protest at Q9844795 (civil servant), stating: "Values of field of this occupation statements should be instances or subclasses of one of the following classes (or of one of their subclasses), but civil service currently isn't:
- industry
- academic discipline
- activity
- knowledge
- area of law".
I don't have a solution but this needs fixing. --Ehitaja (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Inverse property not working well
editSee discussion at Property talk:P3095#Inverse property not working well. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:38, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
Constraint conflicts when industry is also an activity
editRight now, both of the following claims exist:
- field of this occupation (P425)property constraint (P2302)conflicts-with constraint (Q21502838)
property (P2306)industry (P452) constraint status (P2316)mandatory constraint (Q21502408) - practiced by (P3095)property constraint (P2302)inverse constraint (Q21510855)
property (P2306)field of this occupation (P425)
This causes a conflict for some items which are instance of (P31)activity (Q1914636) and instance of (P31)industry (Q268592).
For example, candle-maker (Q1739737)field of this occupation (P425)candlemaking (Q29349255). This claim could certainly be omitted from the perspective of candlemaking (Q29349255), since there is already candle-maker (Q1739737)industry (P452)candlemaking (Q29349255) and it seems repetitive, but that would cause a constraint violation on candlemaking (Q29349255)practiced by (P3095)candle-maker (Q1739737) because it would missing the inverse statement. I think removing this last claim from candlemaking (Q29349255) would be a loss of relevant information.
I propose removing the first constraint, so that items could have both field of this occupation (P425) and industry (P452). What do others think? Daask (talk) 13:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
- @Daask: I am removing candle-maker (Q1739737)industry (P452)candlemaking (Q29349255). As its description states, industry (P452) should have an organization as subject. --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 15:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- That should resolve my concern. Thank you! Daask (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)