query-80c2cad237fff957014a8145674d6a39
Discussion]reply[21:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (EncycloPetey this property proposal as not being well thought through. --Oppose I see from responses that the issue is blurring the lines between "work", "edition / translation", and "instance", and therefore have to Treating a translation in its own right would require a change in the way Wikiproject:Books handles things, as well as projects like Film and Music, and would therefore require a discussion to happen before doing so. We can't make an offhand decision in a property proposal that would change what several other projects have been doing. ]reply[21:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Jonathan GroßAs to the Rosetta stone, I can imagine several avenues. We could set different values with qualifier "applies to part" (in this case "hieroglyphic text: partial", "demotic text: complete", "greek text: partial" (I haven't counted the words but as far as I remember from my 2003 school project, the Greek text is largely intact.). - Another way would be to label the whole text as "state of transmission: partial" as substantial parts of the hieroglyphic and some parts of the Greek text are missing. But this point is certainly up for debate and I will gladly explore it further with you and others. : For works that have surviving translations in another language, I suggest we do as the Clavis Historicorum does and consider any translation a work in its own right and create items for them as well. Then we can specify for each version the state of transmission.EncycloPetey@ ]reply[21:02, 6 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (EncycloPetey How would this apply to works that are fragmentary in their original language, but have complete translations surviving in another language? How would it apply to transcriptions like those on the Rosetta Stone, where one of the language inscriptions is complete, another is partial, and the third is fragmentary? --Comment ]reply[19:26, 6 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (DerMaxdorfer, looks like a useful property for items on literary works. --Support ]reply[19:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Marcus Cyron - very important addition! -- Support ]reply[19:15, 6 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Jonathan Groß: I would prefer to create new items for every quality. Epìdosis@ ]reply[18:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC) dosisEpì convinces me. I suggest to list the QIDs of the five items outlined above (also creating the missing ones); as of now no other reasonable options came to my mind, but they could come later :) --(P5816)state of conservation the necessity of such property is evident and the argument for creating a new one instead of using Support ]reply[10:01, 9 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (PseudoSkull can yes be considered lost. If we're talking about one translation's survival status, we can put it on the translation item, fine. But either a work or a version could be considered lost or extant. work editions are known to exist, the no If no known copies of a book, as a work, are known to survive. for the works. We can blur the line between work and version a little bit, that's fine. Most people care about the work anyway. No one ever asks the question, "hmmm, is this specific reprint of an edition from 1923 a lost reprint?" No... It's much more meaningful to someone if are use the work rather than the version, and that even on Wikisource, versions pages primarily, let's have the works get some respect too. It seems like so many people keep forgetting that basically every site, including Wikipedia and Wikiquote for two examples, Not everything has to go to the versionsSigh... Again with the unnecessary prioritization of versions over works. Just because of the translation situation. FYI, translations can also have versions of those translations, such as newer editions of the same translation... And editions can have versions, such as reprints of the same "second edition". So it's not black and white, ever. ]reply[07:29, 8 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Jonathan Groß. The property proposed here is meant to apply to works as immaterial concepts instead (especially from the pre-print era). (P5816)state of conservation : Thanks for your comment! I realise now that I have indeed not clarified what I meant by "works". I do indeed refer to works as immaterial concepts and not of their material witnesses, i.e. the papyrus scrap, ostracon, manuscript or palm leaf transmitting the work. Those are objects in their own right and they should be classified according to their nature, perhaps using Jahl de Vautban@ ]reply[19:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Jahl de Vautban as a work and not an edition. --(Q1220978)Ilias Latina . For existing translations of lost works however, my point of view would join the one of Jonathan, not least because the translation might well be know only by copies of copies and we can't in fact judge if the translation is acurate or faithful. Moreover, we are speaking of translations that have themselve a complex history of transmission. I have the feeling that those weren't really taken into account when devising the Bibframe model we are using here; likewise, most if not all libraries catalog (P5816)state of conservation :, at least for the Rosetta Stone: the three texts are three versions of the same edict by Ptolemy V, and thus should only be considered with EncycloPetey, but I do think there should be one. For me however, the fundamental distinction shouldn't be between buildings and works, but between material and immaterial concepts. To take an example, a given papyrus or manuscript might be only preserved as a fragment, and if its the only testimonium of a work then the work itself is only transmitted as a fragment. But this fragmentary papyrus might well be one among an hundred and therefore the whole work is entirely transmitted. This distinction might help solve the points mentionned by @(P5816)state of conservation I'm not entirely convinced by the argument about the distinction with Comment ]reply[06:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Jonathan GroßPerhaps it would be prudent to restrict this property to the pre-Gutenberg era where ee are dealing with very fragmented corpora so the state of transmission is an important piece of information. (before 813, hypothetical).I don't mean modern translations of books, and I do not intend to confuse editions, translations and books with works. I will gladly educate myself to try and clarify my proposal.(Q120734189)Anonymous (Translation of Eutropius) (written around 500, preserved in fragments) and one by (Q121169702)Translation of the Breviarium of Eutropius (written around 379 with minor additions and omissions, preserved in full), (Q121157803)Translation of Eutropius (Latin work written around 370, preserved in full form) which has several Greek translations: (Q1248970)Breviarium : What I mean by treating translations as works in their own right, I am referring to historical translations. For instance, EncycloPetey@]reply[12:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (PseudoSkull that was originally based on that data). here's an example of a 2021 compilation work. So, that's a potential place that such data could be imported from. Also, the Library of Congress has lots of data on lost and surviving films (LostMediaWikiNoting here that there is also an entire site that is dedicated to the documentation of lost media, called ]reply[10:04, 9 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (PseudoSkull. Maybe we should just call the property "survival status" so it can apply to these other situations. There are so many lost films, and it'd be useful to sort them on that metric. w:Lost film if we can also extend this discussion to the survival status of films, video games, and other forms of media? This property would actually be in the interest of the lost media community, see Support ]reply[18:19, 9 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Ahc84: any thoughts on the above?Ily88, Jflynn70, JASHough @Comment ]reply[12:57, 12 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Jonathan GroßIndeed I would welcome broadening the scope of the property to any immaterial creative work. The caption 'survival status' is appealing to me, but I'm not sure if it's better than 'state of transmission'. ]reply[12:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (JASHough and I would also agree the concept could be expanded to include film and other media too! Support :'s clarification that is is for the works as immaterial concepts, this makes sense and differentiates the property from 'state of conservation', which can then serve to describe fragmentary or complete states for individual text witnesses as material objects. So Jonathan GroßWith @ ]reply[19:48, 11 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Jahl de VautbanI'm not Jonathan, but I think that would be a welcome broaden of the scope of this property. It should be usable for any type of works. -- ]reply[19:23, 11 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (PseudoSkull: It seems like the discussion is primarily centered around classical works, but do you have any comment on how this might be dealt with more broadly, for example in the realm of films, etc.? Jonathan Groß @Comment The values for this property are yet to be created. From my own experience, I suggest the following (in descending degree of tangibility): full > partial > excerpts > fragments > lost (i.e. title only) > hypothetical > projected (i.e. alluded to but never realized). (as "survival" could be misleading). Would you give me your opinion?state of transmissionThe name of the new property should reflect its intended use as clearly as possible. We have yet to find a solution for that. So far, two names have been suggested (see #1). I lean toward which is meant for concrete objects (such as architectural remains, ostraca, papyri, artifacts, manuscripts etc.).(P5816)state of conservation The new property would be different from (and complementary to) the existing ) of a creative work as an abstract object.survival status (or state of transmissionThere is a rationale for creating a new property which qualifies the ): How do we proceed? I feel I've addressed the concerns expressed here. I'll try and summarize the consensus: Epìdosis, Marcus Cyron, DerMaxdorfer, EncycloPetey, Jahl de Vautban, Ahc84, PseudoSkull, JASHough to all participants of this discussion (Question ]reply[06:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (Jonathan GroßPlease let me know what you think. Cheers, ]reply[22:38, 31 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (JASHoughAlso agree on all points! ]reply[10:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)) talk (DerMaxdorferI agree on Jonathan's points as well and also on the comment by Epidosis. ]reply[08:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC) dosisEpìI agree on all the above points; the preferrable name is "state of transmission" IMHO, "survival status" could be an alias (as well as, I would propose, "transmission status"). --). You can find them with this query: (Q122238678)state of transmission For the item values I created a set of items (all subclasses of
Use at
- https://query.wikidata.org/sparql
PREFIX wikibase: <http://wikiba.se/ontology#>
PREFIX wdt: <http://www.wikidata.org/prop/direct/>
PREFIX wd: <http://www.wikidata.org/entity/>
PREFIX bd: <http://www.bigdata.com/rdf#>
SELECT ?item ?itemLabel WHERE {
?item wdt:P279 wd:Q122238678.
SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
}