Property talk:P1454
Documentation
legal form of an entity
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1454#Value type Q10541491, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1454#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1454#Type Q43229, Q5, Q14623646, Q155076, Q1002697, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1454#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1454#Scope, SPARQL
Replacement property:
Replacement values: (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1454#none of, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1454#Item P17, search, SPARQL
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
Constraint
[edit]I propose the Wikidata item of this property (P1629) to be juridical person (Q155076) not type of business entity (Q1269299)--Asqueladd (talk) 11:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- I agree. I have changed the constraint accordingly. --UV (talk) 20:44, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
- See considerations on value type below. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7844:13A:83F9:BF67 10:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
extended to Q5
[edit]d1g (talk) 04:21, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Proper class instead of Q5 and Q43229 would be agent (Q24229398). d1g (talk) 04:23, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I believe that values of this properties should be subclass of (P279) juridical person (Q155076), not instance of (P31) juridical person (Q155076).
I propose to change the constraint accordingly. If you want to stick to instance of (P31), then we should use another item for that. − Pintoch (talk) 10:32, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
- This seems to be an obvious mistake. I've made the change. 90.191.81.65 07:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Then again, juridical person (Q155076), or more widely legal person (Q3778211), may not do well enough as value type because there are kinds of unincorporated entities and similar which do have a legal form, but which strictly speaking are not legal persons (legal entities). As argued e.g. here lately. Alternatively, it may be more sufficient to set it so that values are instances of legal form (Q12047392) (including instances of its subclasses like Q19588327). 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:7844:13A:83F9:BF67 10:32, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
- So, I'm going to try "legal form" with "instance of" relation as value type instead. At first this will produce some new constraint violations, and it will fix some existing ones as well. Either ways currently there are lots legal form values of bad types as recently someone has falsely copied 1000s of generic types like company (Q783794) or voluntary association (Q48204) from P31 to P1454, while these generic types are not actual legal forms within any particuar legal sytem (compared to Q1518608, Q11513034 etc.) and for some cases denote entities that actually don't even have legal form. 2001:7D0:81F7:B580:E13C:34E5:F2D9:36DA 09:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
- All Properties
- Properties with wikibase-item-datatype
- Properties used on 100000+ items
- Properties with constraints on type
- Properties with single value constraints
- Properties with entity type constraints
- Properties with scope constraints
- Properties with none-of constraints
- Properties with constraints on items using them