Property talk:P1036
Documentation
use with qualifier "edition (P747)" with item value "DDC 23" or create new item to represent the corresponding DDC edition
\d{3}|\d{3}\.\d+|[12456]--\d+|3[ABC]?--\d+
”: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1036#Format, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1036#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1036#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1036#Scope, SPARQL
(Help)
Violations query:
SELECT ?item WHERE { ?item wdt:P1036 ?DDC. FILTER( REGEX( STR( ?DDC ), "^(419.+)$" )) FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q34228} }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1036#Check 419.x
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
GND and DDC
[edit]Unfortunately we can't import the DDC unchecked from authority files.
Example GND 4016825-6 = television (Q289) lists three DDCs:
- 175: Ethics of recreation & leisure
- 302.2345: Television (as part of 302: Social interaction)
- 791.45: Television
Example GND 4045791-6 = philosophy (Q5891) lists two DDCs:
- 100: Philosophy
- T1--01: unknown value
--Kolja21 (talk) 21:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- This is mostly because GND does not state equivalence with the DDC topic but rather applies DDC to its own terms? -- Gymel (talk) 15:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, actually they do: [1] and the following document a classification into four levels of increasing precision / specificity / "determinacy" of the mapping. The highest level gndo:relatedDdcWithDegreeOfDeterminacy4 ist that of equivalence ("identical scope") between GND record and DDC class, at the moment it applies to 1045 records only. Example: pole vault (Q185027) == GND 4056685-7 == DDC 796.434 (still no idea what DDC edition the GND refers to). -- Gymel (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
- AFAIK they use "DDC22ger" = the German translation of the 22nd English edition. --Kolja21 (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
constraint reports
[edit]As far as I know the valid formats are:
- a) the value is starting with one to three digits
- b) three digits might be optionally followed by a DOT character followed by digits, example DDC 001.2092
- while http://dewey.info/class/32/about is equivalent to http://dewey.info/class/320/about
- http://dewey.info/class/32.5/about is not equivalent to http://dewey.info/class/320.5/about , the first link redirects to http://dewey.info/class/32/about
- This is why I suggest to require three digits if a dot is present.
- c) one digit followed by two MINUS characters followed by digits, example DDC 2--4915
- DDC T2--162 should be normalized to DDC 2--162 i. e. the character T should be removed.
Thanks in advance! gangLeri לערי ריינהארט (talk) 17:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
- @Infovarius can you help please? Regards gangLeri לערי ריינהארט (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
constraint report relating to Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410)
[edit]If instance of (P31) is a Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) the presence of Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) is prohibited
- see: Wikimedia disambiguation page (Q4167410) with Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036) . Usualy there might be two possibilities:
- a) please identify the non - ambiguation page (WD item) where the property Dewey Decimal Classification should be moved;
"normally" no other statements should be left at the disambiguation page;
it can happen that a set of properties should be moved to another (a second) WD item, another set to a third WD item etc. - b) verify which language is a disambiguation page and separate it from the rest; please use Gadget-labelLister.js can be activated at preferences#gadgets to remove all faulty descriptions after the disambiguation page is separated (the languages are de, en, fr, es, pt, pt-br, ru, sv and possibly some others).
Thanks in advance! gangLeri לערי ריינהארט (talk) 21:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
formatter URL
[edit]The proper formatter URL is http://dewey.info/class/$1/ (no "about"), see https://www.oclc.org/dewey/webservices.en.html. I coudln't add the right one (says "malformed input"), so I edited in place. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
service is down
[edit]The http://dewey.info service is down, I hope that's just temporary. Watch this blog:
- March 11, 2015: http://ddc.typepad.com/025431/2015/03/deweyinfo-unavailable-for-couple-days.html
- April 16, 2015: http://ddc.typepad.com/025431/2015/04/deweyinfo-is-coming-back.html
--Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
- This update never made it to the Dewey blog:
- June 19, 2015: http://www.oclc.org/developer/news/2015/dewey-down.en.html
Edition qualifier
[edit]DDC editions range from 1 to 23 and abridged editions from 1 to 15 where each abridged edition corresponds to a full version. The 11th edition, published 1922, should be in the public domain because published before 1923 but its abridged edition (the 3rd) was only published 1926, so only the full 11th (scanned here) can be used freely. There is a free classification based on DDC edition 11 but with modifications: <http://everybodyslibraries.com/about-the-free-decimal-correspondence/>. Here is a list of edition already entered in Wikidata:
- DDC 11 (Q22293455)
- DDC 19 (Q22291302)
- DDC 20 (Q22291387)
- DDC 21 (Q20830578)
- DDC 22 (Q15222138)
- DDC 23 (Q15222117)
We could also add WebDewey as edition but then an additional access date makes sense. -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Does not work. Conny (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2016 (UTC).
- Yes, for a long time. The URLs are still used as identifiers to query DDC data with from other sources, for instance:
- http://data.ub.uio.no/skosmos/ddc/en/
- http://deweysearchde.pansoft.de/
- http://deweysearchno.pansoft.de/
- http://deweysearchsv.pansoft.de/
- -- JakobVoss (talk) 11:04, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
- Still down indeed. --Nemo 15:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Deprecated statements
[edit]Over two-thirds of the statements for this property are marked as deprecated, which is intended to mean that the value is (and always was) wrong. Why do we have so many incorrect values for this property? Or has someone not been using the deprecated rank properly? - Nikki (talk) 12:22, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Nikki: A fair chunk of the values seem to be table numbers which are probably useful in some contexts, but are also probably not the actual decimal number that most people are expecting. Consider Q64 as an example. Unfortunately, for the purpose I've been looking into all morning, this would seem to make Wikidata almost useless unless I spend a lot of extra time validating data. Lankiveil (talk) 05:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC).
No url access
[edit]The connection is not working at this time. --İncelemeelemani (talk) 13:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
Distinct value constraint and conversion to external-id datatype
[edit]Dollowing the request by Epìdosis to convert this to external-id datatype (see Wikidata:Identifier migration/1 and Wikidata:Contact the development team#Conversion to external-id (May 16)), I added a distinct value constraint .. this allows to see how many would violate it.
The constraint violations show that there still seem to be two uses of this property:
- A. mapping of topics to DDC
- B. application of DDC to works
The first use would typically use external-id datatype, the other not. There are several options:
- 1. we leave it as it is
- 2. we remove all uses of (B.) and convert it to external-id
- 3. we create two new properties and split it into an external-id one for (A.) and a string datatype one for (B.)
- 4. we create a second property for (B.) with string datatype and convert this to external-id. Uses would be (A.) only.
- 5. we convert this to external-id.
Hope this summarizes the situation. --- Jura 10:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Very good summary. I would personally choose 4, maybe adopting 5 while the second property is created. --Epìdosis 18:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1, Epìdosis: I don't know why you left out the other obvious choice - 6: we remove all uses of (A.) and create a second property for that purpose. The vast majority of uses of this property are (B.) - This query finds 5630 instances of version, edition or translation (Q3331189) with this classification code, far more than its use elsewhere. DDC is a classification system and it is most widely used to classify works. Yes naturally, as with any classification system, it can also be used to identify topics, but that's not what it's primary use is! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith, Jura1: It is true, I see 5630 uses in items with instance of (P31)version, edition or translation (Q3331189), and also about 1000 other uses in works, but according to this query the vast majority (over 10000 items) of uses seems to be to identify topics, so I would tendentially discard 6 as more expensive in terms of edits. If there are no objections, I wold propose a new property with string datatype for (A.), following 4. --Epìdosis 19:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Epìdosis: I see your query is more complete than mine, including the subclass relations, but there are only 10893 TOTAL uses of this property, so more than half of them are clearly for works. Where did you get "vast majority (over 10000 items)" from? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: OK, you are right. So we should create a new property for (B.), it's true. I propose it now. --Epìdosis 20:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- From the proposal and the samples, this property (P1036) seems to be for (A.) only. --- Jura 20:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, it is evident that the original scope of the property (visible in proposal and examples) has been widely misunderstood; but since (B.) values seem to be effectively more than (A.) values, probably the new property should go for (B.) values. --Epìdosis 21:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith, Jura1: so I created Wikidata:Property proposal/Library classifications' IDs for topics, posing the choice between 4 (= B) and 6 (= A). Good night, --Epìdosis 22:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- It looks more like #6 to me. --- Jura 07:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: I have compiled the boxes according to 6, but I have left the option to vote for 4. --Epìdosis 07:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Added boxes for 4. --Epìdosis 08:05, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1: I have compiled the boxes according to 6, but I have left the option to vote for 4. --Epìdosis 07:26, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- It looks more like #6 to me. --- Jura 07:10, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith, Jura1: so I created Wikidata:Property proposal/Library classifications' IDs for topics, posing the choice between 4 (= B) and 6 (= A). Good night, --Epìdosis 22:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, it is evident that the original scope of the property (visible in proposal and examples) has been widely misunderstood; but since (B.) values seem to be effectively more than (A.) values, probably the new property should go for (B.) values. --Epìdosis 21:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- From the proposal and the samples, this property (P1036) seems to be for (A.) only. --- Jura 20:41, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: OK, you are right. So we should create a new property for (B.), it's true. I propose it now. --Epìdosis 20:28, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Epìdosis: I see your query is more complete than mine, including the subclass relations, but there are only 10893 TOTAL uses of this property, so more than half of them are clearly for works. Where did you get "vast majority (over 10000 items)" from? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith, Jura1: It is true, I see 5630 uses in items with instance of (P31)version, edition or translation (Q3331189), and also about 1000 other uses in works, but according to this query the vast majority (over 10000 items) of uses seems to be to identify topics, so I would tendentially discard 6 as more expensive in terms of edits. If there are no objections, I wold propose a new property with string datatype for (A.), following 4. --Epìdosis 19:21, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Jura1, Epìdosis: I don't know why you left out the other obvious choice - 6: we remove all uses of (A.) and create a second property for that purpose. The vast majority of uses of this property are (B.) - This query finds 5630 instances of version, edition or translation (Q3331189) with this classification code, far more than its use elsewhere. DDC is a classification system and it is most widely used to classify works. Yes naturally, as with any classification system, it can also be used to identify topics, but that's not what it's primary use is! ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
- Looks good. Hopefully someone comes up with a clever suggestion for property labels for option B. The pair Iconclass notation (P1256) and depicts Iconclass notation (P1257) might be worth mentioning. --- Jura 16:23, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
- BTW, the Constraint_violations/P1036#"Unique_value" has been updated, it seems that only about 10% of values are used on multiple items. --- Jura 07:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- Good. I'm waiting for the creation of the twin property to start the transferral. --Epìdosis 07:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith, Jura1: Done new properties created some days ago, I've just finished the transferral of values. Good night, --Epìdosis 21:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
- Good. I'm waiting for the creation of the twin property to start the transferral. --Epìdosis 07:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)