Property talk:P1320

Documentation

• Start a query
• Current uses
• Statistics by class
• String length
• List of qualifiers
• Count

OpenCorporates ID
identifier for a corporation, in the OpenCorporates database. Format: country prefix, optional subnational entity abbrevation, "/", alphanumeric id

Description	string that uniquely identifies a legally distinct corporate entity.
Associated item	OpenCorporates (Q7095760)
Applicable "stated in" value	OpenCorporates (Q7095760)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	According to this template: company (Q783794), organization (Q43229), corporation (Q167037), juridical person (Q155076) According to statements in the property: organization (Q43229) or periodical (Q1002697) When possible, data should only be stored as statements
Allowed values	[a-z]{2}(_[a-z]{2})?/[a-zA-ZÖÜÄ0-9\-_]*[0-9A-Za-f] (lowercase jurisdiction prefix (ISO3166-2 format) + "/" + identifier: digits and sometimes letters)
Example	Goldman Sachs (Q193326) → us_de/2923466 Ciech (Q9192339) → pl/0000011687 Devro (Q16988731) → gb/SC129785 Mexican Red Cross (Q5792387) → mx/2682534
Source	http://api.opencorporates.com
Formatter URL	https://opencorporates.com/companies/$1
Tracking: usage	Category:Pages using Wikidata property P1320 (Q60537614)
Related to country	Czech Republic (Q213) (See 155 others) United Kingdom (Q145) (See 326 others) Cyprus (Q229) (See 10 others) France (Q142) (See 638 others) United States of America (Q30) (See 762 others) Germany (Q183) (See 346 others) Australia (Q408) (See 201 others) Netherlands (Q55) (See 106 others) Slovakia (Q214) (See 24 others) Brazil (Q155) (See 94 others) Japan (Q17) (See 148 others) Romania (Q218) (See 38 others) Norway (Q20) (See 97 others) Belgium (Q31) (See 91 others)
See also	OpenCorporates corporate grouping (P5256), Enterprise number (Belgium) (P3376), Swedish Organization Number (P6460), Czech Registration ID (IČO) (P4156), Australian Company Number (P3549), KvK company ID (P3220), Corporate Number (Japan) (P3225), Norwegian organisation number (P2333)
Lists	Items with the most statements of this property Count of items by number of statements (chart) Items with the most statements Items with the fewest statements Count of items by number of sitelinks (chart) Items with the most sitelinks Items with the most sitelinks, but no link to one Wikipedia (sample: Welsh Wikipedia, cywiki) Items with the fewest sitelinks Most linked wikis Items with the most identifier properties Items with no other external identifier Items with no other statements Most recently created items Items with novalue claims Items with unknown value claims Usage history (total) Usage history (main statement) Chart by item creation date Mix'n'match (Report) Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1320 Database reports/Constraint violations/P1320 Map Random list
Proposal discussion	Proposal discussion
Current uses	Total 58,578 Main statement 57,742 out of 210,527,943 (0% complete) 98.6% of uses Qualifier 4 <0.1% of uses Reference 832 1.4% of uses
Search for values

[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]

Format “[a-z]{2}(_[a-z]{2})?/[a-zA-ZÖÜÄ0-9\-_]*[0-9A-Za-f]”: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1320#Format, SPARQL

Single value: this property generally contains a single value. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1320#Single value, SPARQL

Distinct values: this property likely contains a value that is different from all other items. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1320#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)

Type “organization (Q43229), periodical (Q1002697)”: item must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “organization (Q43229), periodical (Q1002697)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303). Known exceptions: Montgomery County (Q488659)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1320#Type Q43229, Q1002697, SPARQL

Item “country (P17)”: Items with this property should also have “country (P17)”. (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1320#Item P17, search, SPARQL

Format “[a-z]{2}(_[a-z]{2})?/.+|”: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)

List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1320#Format, hourly updated report, SPARQL

Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1320#Entity types

Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as reference (Q54828450): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)

Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1320#Scope, SPARQL

Check prefix
(Help)
Violations query: SELECT ?item ?value { ?item wdt:P1320 ?value. BIND (UCASE (SUBSTR(?value, 1, 2)) AS ?uPrefix) MINUS { ?country wdt:P297 ?uPrefix } }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1320#Check prefix

Full check prefix
(Help)
Violations query: SELECT ?item ?value ?uPrefix { ?item wdt:P1320 ?value. BIND (REPLACE(UCASE (STRBEFORE(?value, "/")), "_", "-") AS ?uPrefix) MINUS { ?country wdt:P297 ?uPrefix } MINUS { ?country wdt:P300 ?uPrefix } }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P1320#Full check prefix

This property is being used by: da:Skabelon:Infoboks virksomhed Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.)

Company or grouping?

I've just been looking into how this is constructed. At the moment, it links to a specific company - ie, a single legal entity. For AstraZeneca, for example, it uses gb/02723534. However, this is one of nine companies which are part of a broader group, and it's really the broader group we think of when we say "AstraZeneca" - the UK main company, the Spanish, Dutch and Slovenian subsdiaries, the UK financial holding company, etc, are all part of the same thing.

Would it be better to have this identifier use the OpenCorporates "corporate grouping" concept? They describe this as a "way of grouping of companies without having to say exactly what legal form that relationship takes (e.g. it may be a subsidiary of a subsidiary). In short, it's what most humans (i.e. non tax-lawyers) think of when they think of a large company.". This matches very well to the way Wikipedia/Wikidata tends to handle companies - the general entity rather than the individual legal elements.

AstraZeneca would then link to AstraZeneca - which links to the WP AstraZeneca page, as it happens. Thoughts? AstraZeneca is a relatively simple case, but someone like Stagecoach links 86 seperate OC entries, and large international conglomerates could involve hundreds. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@Gangle, Addshore, LydiaPintscher, John Vandenberg: Andrew Gray (talk) 11:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I am guessing the corporate_groupings are stable identifiers? ·addshore· ^{talk to me!} 11:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Once created, I think so. However, they do need to be manually created (unlike the individual company registrations, which are always there) Andrew Gray (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consider using both? Sometimes our entries will relate to an OC grouping (which, BTW, should have a 1-1 relation with Wikipedia articles; note the Wikipedia link on OC's AstraZeneca grouping page), sometimes individual components (and sometimes we're describing an intermediate type, with no direct OC equivalent). Not every company on OC or in Wikidata will have an equivalent OC group or Wikipedia article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Individual company entries have a specific meaning in OpenCorporates, in that they are an assertion (with proof) that a company exists in a corporate register that has legal force. Corporate groupings, by contrast, are community curated and only lightly moderated. I agree that Wikipedia/Wikidata entries tend to refer to a "folk" entity (which has no legal force), and this entity corresponds with the OpenCorporates grouping concept. However, I'm not sure what the right solution is, because while a grouping may have a stable identifier, its members may not. How about locating the ultimate controlling entity and linking to that? (I work at OpenCorporates BTW) Gangle (talk) 07:59, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the "ultimate entity" is a sensible one, and would also help for the cases that Andy notes where we have articles on different parts of a group - eg Unilever (Q157062) but also Hindustan Unilever (Q1619376), Unilever Australasia (Q7885206), etc; we can link to the top of "that bit". However, is it easy to identify this in OpenCorporates at the moment? Andrew Gray (talk) 21:29, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Very late reply: the ultimate entity is easy to identify when we have it -- but our control data is quite sparse at the moment. Here's an example for a Microsoft subsidiary -- see "controlling company" near the top. Gangle (talk)

So to summarise the situation from an OpenCorporates perspective: on the one hand, there is a good fit with Corporate Groupings, because these are folksonomies curated by our community and as such tend to pertain to "Microsoft-the-abstract-thing-people-mean-when-they-talk-about-Microsoft". And this folk meaning is what people tend to have in mind when using Wikipedia to look for information about a company. On they other hand, our Corporate Groupings are not curated with a high degree of QA; whereas our core data of legal entities is. Also, when someone uses the folk sense of Microsoft, if you tried to pin them down, they would probably agree that what they *meant* was the ultimate controlling company: the one to which money and power ultimately flows. I would tend to say the ultimate controlling company is the correct entity to link to for these reasons, but as I mentioned above, our control data is relatively sparse right now. It's getting better all the time, but there are still lots of gaps. We've recently added weighting to our search results to rank controlling companies higher, but it's experimental so our default search is still sorted alphabetically (see "advanced options" in search results to get sorting by score). I'd suggest the way forward is to try going with ultimate controlling companies, and do an analysis of the gaps for notable Wikidata entries for which the ultimate controlling company is not clear; then we could look at ways to prioritise sourcing this data for OpenCorporates. Gangle (talk)

This sounds reasonable - "ultimate controlling companies" would also let us highlight the subsidiary parts which have identified entities, eg subsidiaries or acquired companies, by linking to the controlling company of that particular bit. Is there an obvious way to identify "ultimate controlling companies" when looking at the OC data? It seems reasonably human-obvious that, eg, this is Microsoft - but not sure how a script would be able to figure that out. Andrew Gray (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Correspondence with national properties

It just occurred to me that the second part of these ids (after the /) is identical to the corresponding id in the national company register. For instance OpenCorporates ID (P1320)fr/527678262 corresponds to SIREN number (P1616) "527678262" , and OpenCorporates ID (P1320)gb/02906991 corresponds to Companies House company ID (P2622)02906991.

• Is there anybody actively deriving national ids from OC ids and conversely?
• Do we have a mapping somewhere of which properties correspond to which OC prefixes?
• If not, how could we maintain that mapping in Wikidata itself? Maybe we could record the OC prefix on the properties themselves with catalog code (P528) or something similar?

− Pintoch (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I have done the derivation mentioned above for a bunch of jurisdictions and made a table to map OpenCorporates prefixes to Wikidata properties. That suggests a lot of new properties to create for each jurisdiction where the registry is open enough. OpenCorporates has an OpenRefine reconciliation interface that can be used to discover ids of existing company items in the national registries. − Pintoch (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pintoch: I've only just read about this property, and have converted Australia (Q408) in both directions, as well as setting up a complex constraint on Australian Company Number (P3549) to keep them aligned. I'll look into getting a set from the OpenCorporate API for matching the ID. I assume this is an ok use of the API @Gangle:, even though Wikidata is CC0? OC is generally in favour of Wikidata integration? --99of9 (talk) 10:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@99of9: Great! Yes importing ids is fine. − Pintoch (talk) 13:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I am aware of @Mormegil: occasionally adding OpenCorporates ID (P1320) based on Czech Registration ID (IČO) (P4156). It would be nice to have a bot doing that regularly, in both direction and for all relevant national properties.

I am not aware of any complete mapping, but feel free to use Wikidata:WikiProject Companies subpage for this purpose. All existing national properties are listed here Wikidata:WikiProject_Companies/Properties#Country-specific. Wikidata:WikiProject Companies/Country-specific has opencorporates column as well, but its country coverage is limited at the moment.--Jklamo (talk) 15:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)