Property talk:P1535
Documentation
item or concept that makes use of the subject (use sub-properties when appropriate)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1535#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1535#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1535#Value type Q24229398, Q488383, SPARQL
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
duplicate
edit@Micru:/@Jakec: this is a duplicate of occupant (P466). Michiel1972 (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- This is not exactly the same, it allows to say: :) --Micru (talk) 21:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Confusing descriptions
editThe table above says, first, "item or concept that makes use of the subject..." but then "the person or organization". Same difference between :en and :de subtitles. Which is the intended meaning (any item vs. humans and organizations) - ? Retired electrician (talk) 16:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Overzealous constraint?
editThis property is often used to mean "used by members of the class", as in sleight of hand (Q350834)used by (P1535)entertainer (Q138858). In these cases, the inverse constraint does not apply. We should either remove the constraint, or split the property. Likewise for uses (P2283). Swpb (talk) 15:50, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
- Agreed. I certainly use apples and oranges, but they don't use me. I won't let them, no way . This shouldn't be a reciprocal relation. Retired electrician (talk) 09:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Eventual new property
edit@Micru, Emw, Eurodyne: Dear participants in the discussion about the creation of the property and @Andrew J.Kurbiko, Fractaler: (who mostly used this property at the moment), I'm here with @Alexmar983: and we were looking for a property to codify which specific categories of people can access a place or institution. This is the only one which seems close but it does not communicate the sense of constraint (e.g. if we want to say that only male (Q6581097) can access Mount Athos (Q130321), this property doesn't seem to be adequate). Do you think we should create a new property (i.e. "accessible only to") or adapt this one? We are waiting for your feedback. Thank you very much, --Epìdosis 15:19, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Epìdosis: May be access restriction status (P7228) fit better ?. I'm not sure. Amadalvarez (talk) 16:36, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Amadalvarez: access restriction status (P7228) seems only related to texts. --Epìdosis 16:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- that one is related to collections of artworks and documents in general, if I read correctly (maybe it can be better specified) but it should be a specific case of this future missing general property. Still, there is some order missing for functional long-term use, it's the typical situation where people start to force one use or another that were originally not planned.--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Amadalvarez: access restriction status (P7228) seems only related to texts. --Epìdosis 16:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Why a special case for "armiger"?
editseems very odd to me. - Jmabel (talk) 02:33, 13 December 2022 (UTC)