Property talk:P3153

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Crossref funder ID
identifier for an organisation that funds research, in the Crossref registry
Associated itemCrossref (Q5188229)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainorganization (Q43229)
Allowed values\d+
ExampleNatural History Museum of London (Q309388)501100000831 (RDF)
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation (Q1200258)100000879 (RDF)
European Commission (Q8880)501100000780 (RDF)
Formatter URL$1$1
Robot and gadget jobsimport from Crossref's CC0 registry
See alsoDOI (P356), Ringgold ID (P3500)
Proposal discussionProperty proposal/Crossref funder ID
Current uses13,417 out of 15,965 (84% complete)
Search for values
[create] Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here
Distinct values: this property likely contains a value that is different from all other items. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3153#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
Single value: this property generally contains a single value. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3153#Single value, SPARQL
Format “[1-9]000[01]\d{4}|[1-9]0\d{2}0000\d{4}”: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3153#Format, hourly updated report, SPARQL
Type “organization (Q43229): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “organization (Q43229)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3153#Type Q43229, SPARQL

Quality of Crossref[edit]

How good is the quality of Crossref. I noted that Novo Nordisk Fonden (Q22723716) (a very large Danish foundation) is not to be found, but "Novo Nordisk" and "Novo Nordisk UK Research Foundation" are there. This seems odd. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 21:48, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Many GRID ID (P2427) merge multiple Fundref ids, so it seems to me that Fundref has a very high granularity (see grid.4991.5 for an example). − Pintoch (talk) 20:40, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Three properties for the same database![edit]

I am a bit disappointed to find out that three different properties can be used to link a Wikidata item to a Fundref record:

Shouldn't we just pick one and stick to it? I am responsible for the vast majority of these DOI (P356) uses, so as you can guess I consider it a better choice:

  • The whole point of the DOI system is to create a unified identifier across many publishers, so I do not really see why we would create a property for each publisher.
  • The DOI system supports content negotiation and is inter-operable with bazillions of APIs
  • The default formatter URL on Crossref funder ID (P3153) is unhelpful as it does not display any institution metadata except the name. So good luck if you want to distinguish between Fundref 100011130 (University of Maine (Q1307345)) and Fundref 501100005715 (University of Maine (Q834825)). The URL generated by DOI (P356) is much more useful, because it contains some location information, alternate names, official websites, and so on. It is arguably less user-friendly if your browser does not know how to display JSON properly, though.

Pintoch (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Pintoch
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
Vladimir Alexiev (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Satpal Dandiwal (talk)
Sush_0809 (talk)
John Samuel Nomen ad hoc

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Universities

Hi Pintoch - you may have noticed I made a comment suggesting we just use DOI on the property proposal but was outvoted... ArthurPSmith (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Completely agree. Please note that there are 5.8k matches on Mix-n-Match that are against the DOI, though in catalog "FundRef", so the number of DOI uses can be increased even more. The DOI also serves useful data, eg see, including links renamedAs/continuationOf. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 12:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Hmmm; the example given above, has Crossref ID 100011130 and DOI 10.1037/h0093695. These are not the same ID. Am I missing something? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: When you resolve the Crossref ID, it displays the list of publications associated to this institution, with their own DOIs. In this case, there is just one, which has indeed DOI 10.1037/h0093695. That is different from the DOI for the institution, 10.13039/100011130. This is why the current resolver URL for Crossref funder ID (P3153) is confusing! − Pintoch (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
My bad, In that case, I suggest "merging" those two properties (effectively, deleting Crossref funder ID (P3153)), but keeping no label (P1905), which has text values - perhaps for use as a qualifier like this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
That would be a nice way to display the name, but there is a constraint saying that DOI (P356) should not be used with any qualifier: {{Constraint:Qualifiers|mandatory=true|list=}}Pintoch (talk) 12:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Contraints should serve us, not vice versa. Bad constraints can be fixed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:24, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Formatter URL[edit]

Hi Manu1400, I have changed back the preferred formatter URL to its previous value. The problem with the formatter URL you have set is that it does not display any metadata about the institution, which makes it hard to distinguish between things like Fundref 100011130 (University of Maine (Q1307345)) and Fundref 501100005715 (University of Maine (Q834825)). It can also cause confusion between the DOI for the papers it displays, and the identifier for the institution (see above). I know a JSON payload is not fantastic for end users, but unfortunately that is all we have for now. − Pintoch (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)