Wikidata:Property proposal/object is

object is

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

   Not done

Description	(qualifier) to indicate that the object is different from the subject or that the object is the same as the subject (in the case of reflexive statements)
Data type	Item
Allowed values	different from the subject (Q115705115) or the same as the subject (Q115705117)
Example 1	human (Q5)parent (P8810)human (Q5)object isdifferent from the subject (Q115705115)
Example 2	human (Q5)employer (P108)human (Q5)object isthe same as the subject (Q115705117)nature of statement (P5102)sometimes (Q110143752)statement is subject of (P805)self-employment (Q1005490)
Example 3	self-reference (Q1129622)references work, tradition or theory (P8371)self-reference (Q1129622)object isthe same as the subject (Q115705117)
Example 4	quine (Q1047886)product, material, or service produced or provided (P1056)quine (Q1047886)object isthe same as the subject (Q115705117)

Motivation

APA has unclear semantics if A is a class, it could mean:

1. an instance of A has a relation P to another instance of A (which may or may not be the same instance)
2. an instance of A has a relation P to a different instance of A (which cannot be the same instance)
3. an instance of A has a relation P to itself

So I propose the introduction of an "object is" qualifier property with the values different from the subject (Q115705115) to denote #2 and the same as the subject (Q115705117) to denote #3.

Why don't we just use object of statement has role (P3831) or identity of object in context (P4626) for this? These are both non-restrictive qualifiers meaning they must not change the meaning of the qualified statement.

While nature of statement (P5102) is a restrictive qualifier so it could be used, it is used for a very different purpose (qualifying the underlying circumstances of a statement, e.g. sometimes (Q110143752) or hypothesis (Q41719))

--Push-f (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

• WikiProject Properties has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead. --Push-f (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Support love it. Lectrician1 (talk) 02:08, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

  If there are only those two allowed values, the property name should be more specific otherwise people will likely use it in various constraint violating ways. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:59, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

•  Comment Example 2 is a bad example (and should probably not even be added to Q5). It's a too complex statement that also should have the opposite value added as well, as that is probably more common. And for many jurisdictions self-employment (Q1005490) is not even considered to be an employer if there is no one else in the company. Ainali (talk) 15:46, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
•  Question can you supply more specific examples of what types of items this would be used on, e.g. Isaac Newton (Q935) rather than human (Q5)? Are you advocating that it be placed as a qualifier for every instance of father (P22), mother (P25), and relative (P1038), to explicitly indicate that a subject's parent or relative is not in fact the same person as the subject (which I think would be extremely pedantic and a waste of energy). The other examples seem rather niche and specific to self-referencing or self-replicating items that don't seem to need more complex modeling. -Animalparty (talk) 02:38, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
•  Question Do we have actual use for statements of the form APA or is the proposal to artificially introduce such statements as a means to describe some qualities of P in the form of APA‘object is’ (Pxxx)something? Why not make a statement about the property directly, something like Phas characteristic (P1552)irreflexivity (Q54933368)? ―BlaueBlüte (talk) 08:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Push-f:, could you please response all the questions/comments above. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 05:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

  +1 ... There are many properties to deal with in Wikidata. I would advocate more reuse. According to the OWL spec, saying something is reflexive does not mean that the instances are identical. AWesterinen (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

•  Support, an important property for the completeness of Wikidata.--Arbnos (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
• @Push-f, Lectrician1, Ainali, Animalparty, AWesterinen, Arbnos:,  Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time, and lack of clarification. Also, didn't response the comments/questions above. @Push-f: let me know if would like to continue with clarification. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)