Wikidata:Property proposal/choreography for

choreography for

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Done: choreography for (P10612) (Talk and documentation)

Description	the song or work this item is the choreography for
Represents	choreography (Q180856)
Data type	Item
Domain	item
Example 1	The Feels choreography (Q108861263) → The Feels (Q108206754)
Example 2	Lovesick Girls choreography (Q108861365) → Lovesick Girls (Q99675478)
Example 3	Fancy choreography (Q108525916) → Fancy (Q63183288)
See also	choreographer (P1809)

Motivation

We need a property to relate choreography and the work it was created for.

I think this is a subproperty of created for (P9883). A subproperty dedicated to choreography is needed for constraints and differentiation between other "created for" relationships (for example the set of an act of a play could be "created for" the act along with the choreography).

FRBR (Q108289578) recommends using a "complements" property for choreography-work relationships. We currently have supplement to (P9234) (which actually incorrectly mixes the terms "supplement" and "complement"), but not a "complement to" property. I didn't want to propose it yet because I think the more-specific property "choreography for" is needed first. Also, "complement to" could be used to model figurative relationships like "light complements darkness" and others that I haven't completely thought out the data model for yet.

Feel free to add more examples to this proposal. The first 3 are KPOP-focused.

Lectrician1 (talk) 18:08, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

@UWashPrincipalCataloger:You might be interested.

WikiProject Music has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.

Lectrician1 (talk) 09:59, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Resource Description and Access (Q1519318) also has this relationship property: is choreography for work: "Relates a work to a work that is complemented by a choreographic work." The broader property in RDA is is complemented by work: "Relates a work to a work that is paired with a related work without either work being considered to be predominant." --UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 16:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the modeling of choreographic works may be problematic in Wikidata. I looked in the LC/NACO Authority file for works that are related to each other by the RDA property "is choreography for work". There are currently just 16 work authority records with this relationship in them. An example: Graham, Martha. Appalachian spring is choreography for work Copland, Aaron, 1900-1990. Appalachian spring. When I search Wikidata I find Appalachian Spring (Q620638) which says that Appalachian Spring is an instance of ballet (Q15079786) and choreographic work (Q58483088). But the description says "musical composition and ballet by Aaron Copland". In order to use the proposed property, we would need separate items for the choreographic work by Graham and the musical composition by Copland. The work by Copland is not a ballet, it is ballet music. I find the same issues in Apollo (Q619275). In the LC/NACO Authority file we have Balanchine, George. Apollo is choreography for work Stravinsky, Igor, 1882-1971. Apollon musagète but Apollo (Q619275) apparently represents both works. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 16:32, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UWashPrincipalCataloger Well at the moment we have no alternative property to this proposal, so whether we have modeling issues or not, this should probably be created and those issues be solved later. Lectrician1 (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UWashPrincipalCataloger any response? Lectrician1 (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I share the concerns of @UWashPrincipalCataloger. There is even not only the musical composition and the choreographic work, but also the manifestation of both in a dance/ballet production that very often has the same title and may (e.g. The Four Temperaments (Q56458418)) or may not (e.g. Le Sacre du Printemps (Q56458414) be linked to the underlying choreographic work and musical composition, depending on the source data. I see the need for the proposed property, but I think a constraint is needed so that the property can only be used on items that are conceptually a choreography (instance of choreography (Q180856)) and nothing else. Additionally it should be clear that the property can also be used to link choreographies to dance/ballet productions. Beireke1 (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Performing arts: please join this discussion. Beireke1 (talk) 10:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I read and then re-read everyone's comments and it feels as though everyone is kind of right.

KPOP and ballet are two rather different disciplines and they may require a slightly different modelling approach. But, both should equally be taken into account into our decision.
I agree with @UWashPrincipalCataloger: In ballet, the dramatico-musical work (Q58483083) and the choreographic work have distinct copyright holder. Therefore they definitely require their distinct items.
- Side observation: the definition for choreographic work (Q58483088) probably needs some attention.
Whether we call the dramatico-musical work a ballet or ballet music (or simply "dramatico-musical work", which is in my opinion the most accurate term) is another relevant question, but one that shouldn't be a decision factor for the current property proposal.
@Beireke1 is also right. In FRBR, a work is realized in an expression, which is then embodied in a manifestation. The relationship between a musical or dramatico-musical work and the choreographic work could therefore be represented further down in the WEMI stack.

However, at present, the performing arts and library communities still haven't achieved a consensus on the representation of core performing arts concepts and relationships. It may take another year or two before we define a core performing arts ontology that is harmonized with LRMoo and other classic RDF ontologies. Until then, how should we think of implementing rdau:P60740 has choreography and rdau:P60741 is choreography for in Wikidata? Would it be a precipitated decision or a reasonable temporary solution? I'm hesitant, but I'm leaning towards taking action rather than waiting for a perfect solution. Fjjulien (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Fjjulien that RDA's unconstrained properties rdau:P60740 has choreography and rdau:P60741 is choreography for are probably the most appropriate to use, because they are not limited to one of the WEMI entities like is choreography for work and has choreography work. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support, an important property for art.--Arbnos (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectrician1, UWashPrincipalCataloger, Beireke1, Fjjulien, Arbnos: Done: choreography for (P10612) —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In many of the properties you are creating, you are neglecting to include "property scope constraint" and "allowed-entity-types constraint." I added them to this one, which removed the constraint violations. I also corrected the value-type constraint. You had it as "choreography", but the values for this property are not choreographic works, they are musical works. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 18:13, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]