Shortcut: WD:PP/AUTH

Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Property proposal: Generic Authority control Person Organization
Creative work Place Sports Sister projects
Transportation Natural science Lexeme

See also[edit]

This page is for the proposal of new properties.

Before proposing a property

  1. Check if the property already exists by looking at Wikidata:List of properties (manual list) and Special:ListProperties.
  2. Check if the property was previously proposed or is on the pending list.
  3. Check if you can give a similar label and definition as an existing Wikipedia infobox parameter, or if it can be matched to an infobox, to or from which data can be transferred automatically.
  4. Select the right datatype for the property.
  5. Start writing the documentation based on the preload form below and add it in the appropriate section.

Creating the property

  1. Once consensus is reached, change status=ready on the template, to attract the attention of a property creator.
  2. Creation can be done 1 week after the proposal, by a property creator or an administrator.
  3. See steps when creating properties.

On this page, old discussions are archived. An overview of all archives can be found at this page's archive index. The current archive is located at 2018/12.

Authority control[edit]

See also Wikidata:Property proposal/Pending for approved items awaiting the deployment of currently unavailable datatypes
Already approved properties: list

Flickr tag[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionTag used on Flickr to indicate images relating to a particular item
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameterTemplate:Flickr tag inline link (Q21619988)
Domainany
Allowed values[^\s\/]+
Example 1England Delineated (5th edition) (Q52230303) -> sysnum000033859
Example 2MISSING
Example 3MISSING
Sourcehttps://www.flickr.com
Planned useto add to items for British Library "Mechanical Curator" image sources; but the property would also be useful for images uploaded to Flickr in projects by eg the Internet Archive, Biodiversity History Library, Smithsonian, etc, etc.
Number of IDs in sourcePerhaps 100,000 for institutional projects, maybe more. But probably only a certain proportion of these would actually be added to items.
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/$1

Motivation

A number of digitisation projects have uploaded images to Flickr, using Flickr tags to group images from particular sources or relating to particular subjects. It would be useful to record these, and provide easy linking to the corresponding images. Jheald (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Proposed. Jheald (talk) 15:02, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 16:38, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose seems to be the wrong datatype if not limited to the British Library tags. String is what we use for similar (e.g. Twitter tags). If the use wont be limited to a single item, it shouldn't be an external identifier either (compare with some other classifications).
    --- Jura 18:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jura1: It's an identifier, it's external => it ought to have an external identifier type. Much better for it to appear below the fold than cluttering up the main section of statements on an item. If you want to record whether it is generally 1-to-1 or not (and, yes, it's probably not, if one starts going beyond institutional tagging), that's what constraint statements on property pages are for. Jheald (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • I agree with you, but that's not the conclusion from the discussion about the string datatype conversion. Besides, mere GUI things can be changed otherwise. So to be consistent with others, it should use string datatype.
      --- Jura 18:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: A particular aspect of our GUI could be changed, but in this case its unlikely -- how should the GUI distinguish string-valued statements for genuine strings that ought to appear above the fold, from string-valued statements for external identifiers, which ought to appear below the fold. Much better to make all external identifiers external-identifier valued.
Even more difficult, how are external applications supposed to recognise strings that refer to external identifers, if they are not external-identifier valued? For example, Reasonator. The value of this property ought to be in Reasonator's external links box in the right-hand column. But how is eg Reasonator supposed to know that, if the property is string-valued rather than external-identifier valued?
If other properties have been given unhelpful types, the place to start changing that is here and now. So I stand firm for making this external-identifier valued, because it is an external identifier, and I believe it is helpful to external applications to mark it as such. We should remember that "consensus can change". If external identifiers haven't been given external-identifier type, that nonsense has gone on long enough, and we should end it. :::Can you give a link to the earlier discussion on this? What were supposed to be the conclusive benefits of giving external identifiers a type other than external-identifier? Is any application in the wild relying on this distinction (as opposed to being degraded by it, like Reasonator) ? And if this is about reasonably consistent single-valuedness, why is that not more effectively indicated by the explicit constraint statements on |the property? Jheald (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
It's just not the outcome of the discussion. Datatype alone isn't necessarily a good indicator for GUI construction. Currently this mixes social media accounts of a person with third party identifiers. Depending on the presentation, this can look bad. I asked our developers to look into some of the GUI issues at Wikidata. Obviously, interface things are always top priority for them ;)
--- Jura 07:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
So for example England Delineated (5th edition) (Q52230303) -> sysnum000033859.
There's scope for perhaps up to 100,000 such categories on Commons, maybe more. Jheald (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Some background about the machine tags at https://www.flickr.com/groups/51035612836@N01/discuss/72157594497877875/ .
Not sure if we should even link to Flickr in the example. Shouldn't all these images just be on Commons? Multichill (talk) 11:21, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
@Multichill: 1. Stats: We currently have about 40,000 images on Commons from the BL scans, out of about 1 million on Flickr. For images scanned from Internet Archive books, we have about 480,000 images, out of about 5.25 million on Flickr. We have about about 250,000 images from the BHL, out of an unknown number, mostly linked directly to the BHL website, though copies may exist on Flickr via the IA.
The issue with these pix (and the reason for those counts) is that metadata for these images is generally very very weak, generally extending no further than title, author, publisher, and date of the book the image was extracted from -- ie most usually nothing about what might be actually depicted in the image. Also, many of the images frankly aren't very interesting or of very high quality. For that reason the Commons community originally outright vetoed a bulk upload of all the BL images; instead those that have been uploaded have been uploaded selectively, and hand-curated by editors as they went along. Regarding the IA images, Fae has systematically uploaded those above a certain size, and left the rest. So that's why, in both of these cases, there are a lot more images still on Flickr than those so far copied to Commons.
Should we copy over the rest, particularly in view of Flickr's recent change of ownership, previous precarious financial position, and the recent repositioning of some other image platforms to turn against Commons images? Perhaps, but in the case of both the IA and the BL, we know where these images came from, we are on good terms with the institutions, and we could almost certainly obtain the images on hard drives if anything calamitous did happen at Flickr. So there is probably no pressing reason to change existing Commons practice. (Though I do still hope to upload 50,000 of the BL images that depict maps, for which currently underway). But it would be useful to be able to systematically link to the corresponding image-sets on Flickr, from Commons categories for books, to see what other images may be available.
2. Machine tags. Is there a Dutch translation of the English Q7691305? Perhaps with a nice informative illustrative painting by Jan Steen (Q205863) ? :-)
Yes, I know what machine tags are. The metadata improvement project for the map images has even been systematically adding them. But there are a number of problems with them, the first being that they are hardly used, so Flickr doesn't really care about making sure that software updates don't break them. There are a number of ways of constructing Flickr URLs with them that one would feel ought to work, but then strangely don't. Even if a URL template can be made to work this year, that's no guarantee as to whether it would still work next year. In contrast the simpler regular tags tend to be more bulletproof. Also the machine tags and/or the searches for them munge spaces and punctuation in various ways, making it difficult to use many existing identifiers as machine tags.
But the real point is that, for what I really want, namely to return all the images from a particular book, the images already have tags for this, systematically added by the BL and the IA when the images were uploaded, so those are the tags I'm interested in. Nobody is going to take the time and bandwidth to add machine tags to 6.25 million images, simply to duplicate information that is already there. It's the current established regular tags for books and book-volumes from the BL and the IA that one would want to link to. Jheald (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support by analogy with other tag properties created and proposed, though it is very clearly evident that concerns about their creation overlap greatly at least when it comes to their datatype and their general worthiness of inclusion. On this former point, until we all agree to recast Twitter hashtag (P2572) as an external identifier, I support this property's creation as a string; on the worthiness of its inclusion, I sometimes wonder, given many of the examples presented here and elsewhere, whether a single unified 'tag' property is in order, seeing as most of them pertain to exactly the same topic whether viewed on Twitter, Instagram, Gfycat, or Flickr. Mahir256 (talk) 15:10, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm a bit unsure: this is very similar to Twitter hashtag (P2572) but there are differences. Tags are no identifiers, so the datatype should be string, but tags serve a similar purpose like identifiers. Flickr tags were one of the first popular instances of folksonomy (Q494291), that's why I support this proposal. There are several more tagging applications, (e.g. see https://www.librarything.com/tag/archaeology) and we don't want properties for all of them but this must be decided case by case. -- JakobVoss (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
Benefit of the doubt, doesn't harm imo so:
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I'm a mergist, but tendency in occasion as this include Klaas `Z4␟` V:  20:46, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cwf97 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

CETAF specimen ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionpersistent identifier URL for a taxonomic specimen, compliant with the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities Stable Identifier Initiative
Data typeURL
Domaintaxon type specimens (+other notable specimens, if any)
Example 1item for the type specimen of Cinnamomum bejolghota (Q2972821)http://herbarium.bgbm.org/object/B100277113
Example 2item for the type specimen of Harpagoxenus sublaevis (Q309349)http://id.luomus.fi/GL.749
Example 3item for the type specimen of Carabus lusitanicus brevis (Q5037464)https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/ec/item/ec32
SourceConsortium of European Taxonomic Facilities (Q5163385)
Number of IDs in sourcemany thousands, eventually millions
Expected completenesseventually complete

Motivation

As noted on Wikispecies:

the Consortium of European Taxonomic Facilities has created a system of persistent identifiers for type specimens (https://cetaf.org/cetaf-stable-identifiers). The intension is that the URI to the specimen will remain stable indefinitely, so we can link to type specimens without fear that the link will break.

The CETAF initiative creates "a joint Linked Open Data (LOD) compliant identifier system". The particpating institutions include the Royal Botanic Garden of Edinburgh, the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin, The Natural History Museum, London, the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and the Royal Museum for Central Africa. Additional information can be found at the CETAF Stable Identifier Initiative Wiki.

AIUI, the intention is that data about type specimens should be stored on an item about the specimen, not the item about the taxon. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

99of9
Achim Raschka (talk)
Brya (talk)
Dan Koehl (talk)
Daniel Mietchen (talk)
Faendalimas
FelixReimann (talk)
Infovarius (talk)
Jean-Marc Vanel
Joel Sachs
Josve05a (talk)
Klortho (talk)
Lymantria (talk)
MargaretRDonald
Mellis (talk)
Michael Goodyear
MPF
Mr. Fulano (talk)
Nis Jørgensen
Peter Coxhead
PhiLiP
Andy Mabbett (talk)
Plantdrew
Prot D
pvmoutside
Rod Page
Soulkeeper (talk)
Strobilomyces (talk)
Tinm
Tom.Reding
Tommy Kronkvist (talk)
TomT0m
Tubezlob
RaboKarbakian
Circeus
Enwebb
Manojk
Tris T7
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Taxonomy Tobias1984 (talk) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits TypingAway (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Tinm (talk) Tubezlob Bamyers99 (talk) Vincnet41 Netha Hussain Fractaler

Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject Biology -- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Discussion

Symbol support vote.svg SupportTom.Reding (talk) 13:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - better to use links to the actual specimen in the holding museum, not a third party. Most holding museums are major organisations with stable websites. This is adding an extra step for mistakes. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:46, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
    • CETAF IDs are in fact exactly what you advocate i.e. links to the specimens in the holding museum not a third party. CETAF is acting more as a standardisation body to get the museums to produce URLs with similar behaviours - basically Linked Data URIs with some agreed metadata attached. RogerHyam (talk) 15:12, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
      • No they are not, they are an unreviewed third party and this is problematic in nomenclature which requires serious review and checking prior to publication, ie peer review. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────

@Faendalimas: The three examples given above are:

  1. http://herbarium.bgbm.org/object/B100277113
  2. http://id.luomus.fi/GL.749
  3. https://science.mnhn.fr/institution/mnhn/collection/ec/item/ec32

For each of those three cases, please tell us which "third party" is being linked to? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not say linked to, I said obtained from, and that it is a non reviewed assessment hence unchecked by scientific rigor. In anycase the first one has a second url on the page which is the museum whether its the correct specimen I do not know, the second is possibly linking to the correct specimen without evidence to show its correct, the third is a dead link for me so I cannot tell what its supposed to do. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Faendalimas: What you said was "better to use links to the actual specimen in the holding museum, not a third party". Furthermore, when told "CETAF IDs are in fact exactly what you advocate i.e. links to the specimens in the holding museum... CETAF is acting more as a standardisation body to get the museums to produce URLs with similar behaviours - basically Linked Data URIs with some agreed metadata attached.", you replied "No they are not". [I've fixed the third link, in my comment; it was always correct in the proposal template.] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I do not have an issue with the links. Its the authority of the information. I meant not "from" a third party. (If you copy and pasted my previous statement, I did not look, I must have left that word out, apologies for that). As in not obtaining the information from a third party. Rather than from the source. What I am getting at is that the information needs to be peer reviewed which online resources are not. I did figure there was a mistake in the url above I assumed you would fix it. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:16, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this proposal needs some thorough investigations. According to CETAF Stable Identifiers the following 15 CETAF institutions implemented this kind

  1. Botanic Garden and Botanical Museum Berlin-Dahlem (Q163255)
  2. Finnish Museum of Natural History (Q3329689)
  3. Institute of Botany (Q30255205)
  4. Museum of Natural History Berlin (Q233098)
  5. Muséum national d'histoire naturelle (Q838691)
  6. Naturalis (Q641676)
  7. Natural History Museum (Q309388)
  8. Natural History Museum at the University of Oslo (Q1840963)
  9. Royal Botanic Garden Edinburgh (Q1807521)
  10. Kew Gardens (Q188617)
  11. State Museum of Natural History Stuttgart (Q2324612)
  12. Bavarian Natural History Collections (Q2324459)
  13. Museum Koenig (Q510343)
  14. Meise Botanic Garden (Q3052500)
  15. Royal Museum for Central Africa (Q779703)

So how could we restrict this URI to this institutions. Most of the URIs will not represent a type specimen (Q51255340). How to use this URIs here? Next week I will try to have a closer look to the 5,5 million URIs provided by the Muséum national d'histoire naturelle. --Succu (talk) 17:59, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

In the current MNHN dataset of ca. 5.5 million specimens 107,867 have a "typeStatus": type (Q3707858) = 27,277; syntype (Q719822) = 18,148; holotype (Q1061403) = 14,454; isosyntype (Q55195195) = 2,798; lectotype (Q2439719) = 2,521. --Succu (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Some problems with the current MNHN dataset I observed:
The dataset contains holotypes for family names
The dataset has multiple holotypes for a taxon, e.g. Cyathea rouhaniana (Q17037631) = P00411818 to P00411823
The dataset uses "decimalLatitude" and "decimalLongitude" without "coordinatePrecision". "verbatimCoordinates" or "verbatimLatitude" and "verbatimLongitude" are not given. --Succu (talk) 08:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
--Succu (talk) 18:05, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support Excited by this. Would be willing to help with automated populating property. --RogerHyam (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Roger, nice to see you here. If I understand the proposal right, it involves the creation of items to get taxonomic type (P427) working. So we need to define how to map the metadata values to our properties. I created P01069419 (Q55196248), P01069417 (Q55197790) and holotype of Ouratea sipaliwiniensis (Q55200035) as a base for discussions. --Succu (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd rather not get into recreating nomenclature. It is a intellectual exercise akin to the jigsaw puzzle in Laura & Hardy "Me and My Pal" (YouTube) - We will be at each others throats and the biodiversity of the world destroyed before we finish the task. Really a type relationship has to include literature and a lot of complexity that is of use to a small specialist audience and just confuses everyone else. If someone wants to know the type of a taxon they can read the literature in the Taxon Name (Property:P225).
It appears Wikidata is building a single consensus taxonomy. If we had a single property that was "has Voucher Specimen" or similar then we could add properties to taxa based on the identifications by experts in museums. e.g. Q557928 "has Voucher Specimen" http://data.rbge.org.uk/herb/E00590786 would be possible. Perhaps I should be proposing a different property but I'm new to the wikidata thing. RogerHyam (talk) 10:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Wikidata is not building a single consensus taxonomy. The contrary is true. A lot of users have difficulties to accept this. ;) --Succu (talk) 17:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Hi Succu. Could you give an examples of multiple taxa (taxon concepts) with the same full scientific name in Wikidata. I'm a bit ignorant on this and need to understand how it is being represented. RogerHyam (talk) 08:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
E.g. we implemented APG I to IV. See the references for parent taxon (P171) at Cactaceae (Q14560): Maybe this is not exactly what you expected. Please note note this discussion too. --Succu (talk) 17:43, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure that the name of the property is good. It may be better to have it as "Museum Specimen ID" or "Voucher Specimen ID" and then have a recommendation that these are CETAF compliant URIs. This way we can have stable links to many specimens that have been determined to belong to a taxon by experts and, if people are good with their data markup, most of these will be expandable into images and geolocations etc. RogerHyam (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment that this is already so confused shows why this is not a good idea in concept. You cannot call the type specimen a voucher specimen or a museum specimen per se. Yes a type is both of those but so are many other specimens. The type is a special case of a voucher or museum specimen as it is the only specimen that the available name of a taxon is attached to. No other specimen has this. It is the specimen upon which the name is established. It has major import. I agree it is only of major interest to a specialist minority, ie taxonomists mostly, but you cannot undervalue it, nor have it proposed in a way that any museum specimen or voucher could be called this. Only the original description or a peer reviewed taxonomic review should be used as the reference of the type specimen. As such they should be listed with reference to these articles and only this way. Then there is a clear reference. Online resources are not reviewed as such and are not reliable when it comes to types. This will introduce potential error in this area of nomenclature that is extremely exacting. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree. I created P01069419 (Q55196248) from the details given in Novitates neocaledonicae V: Eugenia plurinervia N. Snow, Munzinger & Callm. (Myrtaceae), a new threatened species with distinct leaves (Q55196032) ("Typus: New Caledonia. Prov. Nord: Ouazangou-Taom, Onajiele, 165 m, 20°46’43’’S 164°27’59’’E, 20.III.2016, Munzinger (leg. Scopetra) 7530 (holo- : P [P01069419]! ; iso- : G [G00341659]!, MO!, MPU [MPU310532]!, NOU [NOU054468]!, NSW!, P [P01069420]!)"). The applied changes by Mr. Mabbett now give the impression the data are taken form the MNHN record. --Succu (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
If you don't give references when you make claims, don't complain when someone else adds a valid citation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The item was created to discuss mappings (= data model). If you had checked your reference you should have noticed some differences. --Succu (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
The item was created without citations. I added them. If you think I acted improperly, you know where the admin noticeboard is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
I corrected my omission. --Succu (talk) 20:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
But it was reverted with the comment o restore coordinates, as previsouly?! --Succu (talk) 20:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
No; it was reverted with the comment "to restore coordinates, as previously"; and that was because, as well as your declared reason for editing, you also - yet again - re-added coordinates saying that the object is in New Caledonia, on the opposite side of the planet to its actual current location. Hence Wikidata:Project_chat#Coordinates_of_objects_in_museums. None of which, of course, has anything to do with the proposal at hand. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
You proposed this change. Im OK with this. --Succu (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You are moving a bit fast for me to keep up, so please forgive my request for clarifications. Also, please forgive my lack is wiki etiquet if this is the wrong place for these comments.

It would be fantastic to load up all our typification information from the Meise Botanic Garden to Wikidata, but can you point me to a place that describes how?
In this property proposal there are no authority names. This is essential due to homonyms, but where possible they should be linked to people somewhere. However, does this cause problems when linking these data to other Latin names in Wikis that don't use authorities?
I’m sure there are errors in the data, such as there being two holotypes, fixing these is a motivation to expose the data. Does this work for you?
There also needs to be a field that tells you what sort of type it is holo-, lecto, iso, para, neo, etc. Do you want a full list?
The National Botanic Garden of Belgium changed its name a while ago, can I just edited this wikidata entry?

Qgroom (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I wish there was an easy answer to this. I would love to see a proposal that actually did types the way they should be, with all the appropriate metadata included, utilising the correct terminology as accepted in the science and discipline of taxonomy and nomenclature. Alas we do not get this we get rather hit and miss efforts. If someone wants to try and create a property with all the needed attributes, obtaining data from reliable resources I would be happy to help. The same types of properties I create already in museum databases as a museum curator. The same ones I already use as highly published taxonomist and a nomenclatural specialist. You want us to use this material at Wikispecies Andy?? then do it right. I would support this if it was done correctly Andy. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 04:56, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think there are a few people in the CETAF community who could help get this right. Though personally I find it difficult to discuss these things in a chat page and I'm not sure how decisions are made here. Nevertheless, I'd really like to make this happen. Qgroom (talk) 06:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
"I would love to see a proposal that actually did types the way they should be, with all the appropriate metadata included" Then you are in the wrong place. This is a proposal to create a property to hold one type of identifier-URL. The only arguments you have presented about it are either easily refuted (see "third party links" discussion, above. or are merely vague hand -waving and appeals to authority, with no substance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
My comment here was a generalized one only brought up in reference to the above comment. Its not a direct reference to the proposal here at hand. So yes I know this is not the right place. I think the whole structure of how types are presented is inadequate. My point was that unfortunately many proposals are attempts to gather information from online resources for ease of mass import with no respect to the exacting nature of taxonomic data and metadata permitting potential mistakes. These online resources are not authorities on the taxonomy of species. What is the point of data if there is no evidence inherit that demonstrates it has been tested for accuracy. For taxonomic data I want to see us produce useful information not page upon page of unreliable rubbish. Your difficulty Andy is you do not use this information. You are presenting it, but not using it. Much of the informatics being presented, not necessarily by you I am generalizing now, has no guarantee, therefore it has no use in taxonomy. So what is it then except page upon page of what exactly? Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 15:30, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Qgroom: for "a field that tells you what sort of type it is", please see P01069419 (Q55196248); but note also the issues with that data model, which I have raised here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I think I get it. So in your example P01069419 (Q55196248) you would replace the URL (P2699) with this proposed CETAF specimen ID property.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qgroom (talk • contribs) at 15:29, 27 June 2018‎ (UTC).
@Qgroom: Precisely. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:36, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Could you please explain why this substitution is useful? What we (=Wikidata) gain from this change? --Succu (talk) 20:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I suppose the question is why we need a subcategory of URL that is specific to CETAF specimen ID. Well from my point of view, which is quite ignorant of the workings of Wikidata, having the distinction is useful because the CETAF specimen ID points to a great level of stability and functionality than a standard URL. I'm not certain this is entirely necessary, however, it is particularly useful to have one URI that uniquely represents the digital representation of the physical specimen. People could link to many different image files or website all representing that specimen. These might be labelled in all sorts of ways and be derived from all sorts of places. Yet it is much better that there is only one standard way to refer to the physical specimen. Qgroom (talk) 13:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Scott. --Succu (talk) 21:56, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

It's about a lot unanswered questions raised above. --Succu (talk)

missing VIAF components[edit]

Go to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Authority_control#Breakdown_of_VIAF_Links_per_Source, sort by col "property" and look for "!!!". This shows VIAF sources that don't have corresponding WD properties (which should be marked as VIAF component (Q26921380)).

This includes:

  • National Library of Luxembourg
  • National Library of Estonia
  • National Library of Lebanon
  • National Library of Morocco
  • National Library of Iceland (NULI)
  • Perseus (ancient places)
  • Syriac Reference Portal
  • Flemish Public Libraries

The total number of ids is about 250k. I haven't researched whether these authority datasest are available online. Do you think we should create properties for them? Any volunteers to help me with the research?

Also: do you think we should add col "code" to WD in some way? A few of these are available as third-party formatter URL (P3303), but most aren't. It took me a few hours to correlate all VIAF-component sources against WD, and it wasn't fun.

--Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 16:26, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikibase Registry ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionQ-ID in the Wikibase Registry
RepresentsWikibase registry (Q55339228)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example 1OpenStreetMap Wiki (Q18635431)26
Example 2Wikidata (Q2013)2
Example 3Wikibase registry (Q55339228)4
Number of IDs in source25
Formatter URLhttps://wikibase-registry.wmflabs.org/wiki/Item:Q$1

Motivation[edit]

NMaia (talk) 14:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support How many do we have so far though? Hopefully the number will grow... ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It seems to be just a repeat of Wikidata --David (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sure what this and how it is useful, but 25 items don't justify a property. Germartin1 (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support It may be useful if there are growing number of Wikibase instances. John Samuel (talk) 16:28, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cwf97 (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral Isn't this competition:) Nepalicoi (talk) 14:02, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
    • Still very low activity there Nepalicoi (talk) 17:30, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmm, I thought I saw a graph of wikibase instances from the Force2018 conference that showed many more than these 25 or so. In the long run I think it would be useful to have this property, but maybe not ready yet? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
        • I think more examples are needed. John Samuel (talk) 07:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ChristianKl❫ 13:51, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

ANZSRC FoR ID[edit]

   Done
DescriptionAustralia and New Zealand Standard Research Classification 2008 identifier for a field of research
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainresearch topics
Allowed values[1-9]\d{1,5}
Example 1medical and health science (Q56679322) → 11
Example 2dentistry (Q12128) → 1105
Example 3oral and maxillofacial surgery (Q504033) → 110504
Sourcehttp://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/6BB427AB9696C225CA2574180004463E?opendocument
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)

Motivation[edit]

Requested by delegates at the Australasian Research Management Society Conference: "two- and four-digit Fields of Research (FoRs) codes as identified in the Australia and New Zealand Standard Research Classification (ANZSRC) 2008 released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and Statistics New Zealand. The ANZSRC provides 22 two-digit FoR codes, 157 four-digit FoR codes, and an extensive range of six-digit codes." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 02:07, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Løøv classification[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionclassification system for Sami works
RepresentsLøøv classification (Q56686338)
Data typeString
Domainwork (Q386724)
Allowed values([01]\d|2[01])[a-k](1[ab]|[1-7])?
Example 1oai:urm_publish:99000073873470220111d3, 04e
Example 2oai:urm_publish:99000149748470220115a, 15i
Example 3oai:urm_publish:99000150010470220108b
Sourcehttps://www.nb.no/baser/samisk/klassifikasjon.html ; http://bibsys.alma.exlibrisgroup.com/view/oai/47BIBSYS_NETWORK/request?verb=ListRecords&metadataPrefix=marc21&set=samisk
Planned useI will use this when importing the Sami bibliography (around 26,000 works) to Wikidata
Robot and gadget jobsAll works with this classification will be added by bot

Motivering/begrunnelse[edit]

I am working on importing the Sami bibliography from the Norwegian National Library (around 26,000 works) to Wikidata. Almost all of the works use this classification system in addition to Dewey Decimal Classification (P1036), so I think it would be good to have this as its own property to get as much completeness as possible to the imported items. Since I haven't started the import yet, the examples don't link to existing items, but to the entries for books from the bibliography in their API. Jon Harald Søby (WMNO) (talk) 02:23, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 09:10, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cwf97 (talk) 18:55, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Pmt (talk) 17:51, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Waiting for Qids in the examples to create the property. (Also, was a bot request filed for these 26,000 works? Or any other sign of consensus for inclusion?) − Pintoch (talk) 11:53, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Jon Harald Søby (WMNO): marking as not ready − Pintoch (talk) 19:42, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
      • @Pintoch: Sorry, I forgot to reply here when you first posted. I've been waiting to start a bot request until this property is created, because then everything would be ready for the script to start importing. But I can work around that and create some test items without this property included, so I will start a bot request shortly. Jon Harald Søby (WMNO) (talk) 12:49, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

OpenStreetMap wiki ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionQ-ID in the OpenStreetMap wikibase
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainitem, property
Allowed valuesQ[1-9]\d*
Example 1bridge (Q12280)Q103
Example 2brewery (Q131734)Q102
Example 3ferry (Q25653)Q273
Sourcehttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Special:AllPages?from=&to=&namespace=120
Expected completenesseventually complete
Formatter URLhttps://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Item:$1
See alsoOSM tag or key (P1282)

Motivation[edit]

--Mfchris84 (talk) 12:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment should this replace OSM tag or key (P1282) as it probably would be available for any of them? --- Jura 16:37, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral @Jura1: As I can see now, the OSM wikibase contains only key and tag values (up to now?). Before there is no further development at OpenStreetMap e.g. to include other entities in their wikibase, it probably make less sense to create a new wikidata property, except of an advantages in a multilingual use case. Mfchris84 (talk) 05:28, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support NMaia (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment about Property:P1282, not understand why duplicate here... Please explain.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Krauss (talk • contribs) at 01:48, 2 October 2018‎ (UTC).
@Krauss: as i explained above, unless osm wikibase contains other items/concepts than tags or keys, this property isn't useful. Mfchris84 (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment SPARQL federation might be a better way to integrate them: Wikidata:SPARQL_federation_input. --- Jura 17:52, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Cwf97 (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per above. --- Jura 14:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Loves ZEOs ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionunique ID for the Zamenhof-Esperanto objects included in Wiki Loves ZEOs' list
RepresentsWiki Loves ZEOs (Q56703611)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainZamenhof-Esperanto object (Q75762)
Example 1Zamenhofstraat (Q18950696) → nl-001
Example 2Esperanto memorial (Q12347248) → at-008
Example 3Bona Espero (Q201017) → br-002
SourceCommons:Commons:Wiki Loves ZEOs 2018/Lists
See alsoWiki Loves Monuments ID (P2186)

NMaia (talk) 16:39, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

MIAR ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier of a journal in MIAR
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainmagazine->magazine (Q41298)
Allowed valuesthe value is the same that ISSN
Example 1Comunicar (Q30002251) -> ISSN = 1134-3478 -> MIAR = http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1134-3478
Example 2RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia (Q50814551) -> ISSN = 1578-7680 -> MIAR = http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1578-7680
Example 3Revista de Educación Inclusiva (Q50667863) -> ISSN = 1989-4643 -> MIAR = http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1989-4643
Sourcehttp://miar.ub.edu/issn/
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned useI have a bot, i'll put the MIAR ID in the magazines
Formatter URLhttp://miar.ub.edu/issn/$1

Motivación[edit]

In eswiki we have a template to put the MIAR external link, but we are deleting this kind of templates to put all of them inside Template:Authority control. Vanbasten 23 (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It is apparently the very same situation as in Directory of Open Access Journals ID (P5115) (that one was OK, why?). No, it's not enough assigning that url in P236 because not every periodical with a ISSN is indexed in MIAR. I'm not a big fan of the P5115 solution, but people pushed for it, probably because they want a clickable link here (?). You can always store the fact of a journal being indexed in MIAR this way (catalog (P972)-> MIAR (Q24033617)) and fix the module to use that data in wikipedia combined with P236 value. strakhov (talk) 23:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment You can use it as source for ISSN:
RED. Revista de Educación a Distancia (Q50814551) -> ISSN = 1578-7680 -> S854 = http://miar.ub.edu/issn/1578-7680
See for example Q57315347
--Gerwoman (talk) 18:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
But I don't understand why DOAJ can have its own Directory of Open Access Journals ID (P5115), and MIAR cannot. Why some repositories do, and others do not. Some have a statement and others are entered as a source. There isn't uniform criterion for these decisions. Thanks. --Vanbasten 23 (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

New York Times article ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionshort URL for a New York Times article
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed valuesregex [a-zA-Z0-9]+
Example 1I Am Part of the Resistance Inside the Trump Administration (Q56488792)2CyF3Jh
Example 2Aziz Ansari Is Guilty. Of Not Being a Mind Reader. (Q48342255)2EIbKzZ
Example 3The Slut-Shaming of Nikki Haley (Q48344584)2FtInln
Example 4Barack Obama and Me (Q58450190)2hJcqMP
SourceHTML of nytimes.com
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://nyti.ms/$1
See alsoNYT topic ID (P3221)

Motivation[edit]

The New York Times is, by most measures, one of the most important newspapers in the world.

While online NYT articles seem to have at least two internal identifiers other than the long URL (the op-ed also has QXJ0aWNsZTpueXQ6Ly9hcnRpY2xlLzM4MGM0MGZhLWU5ZGYtNTg3Mi05NTcxLWUzMmUyZDBjNjYxMw==.legacy), this one seems to be the most useful for Wikidata to record since it forms a working URL.

Presumably this property would be used on items about NYT articles themselves (or within references), and the items would be notable as a result of being used as sources on other items. Jc86035 (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment About how many NY Times articles have wikidata items? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:09, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per w:en:URL shortening#Shortcomings and meta:Spam blacklist#URL shorteners. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Visite fortuitement prolongée, Pigsonthewing: Most of the concerns in the article don't actually apply, since nyti.ms isn't a public URL shortening service and presumably nyti.ms URLs are only generated by the New York Times for its own articles; most numeric and alphanumeric identifier systems obscure their subjects; .ms is the TLD for Montserrat, a British overseas territory (censorship unlikely); Wikidata can choose not to block the domain (and it doesn't); and the domain is registered under the New York Times Company. I would only be worried about the durability of the identifiers, but that is a concern for basically any URL. The domain is apparently run by bit.ly (or at least it was in 2009), but it has also lasted more than nine years so far and the domain is owned by the NYT itself. I don't think it's that different to other external IDs in Wikidata. Jc86035 (talk) 15:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Visite fortuitement prolongée. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Well, seems fine to me, especially to link to over 2000 items. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:41, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 10:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I did not know that the New York Times was based in Montserrat. Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Visite fortuitement prolongée: I meant that the domain had been registered with the TLD/country code for Montserrat, and it seems overseas companies are generally allowed to register .ms domains. Jc86035 (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Why create a property for shortened URL and not use URL (P2699) or full work available at (P953)? Visite fortuitement prolongée (talk) 14:59, 25 October 2018 (UTC), 15:01, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
    @Visite fortuitement prolongée: It really depends on whether we think this is worth storing. The short URLs are potentially more durable than the longer URLs, and it's possible that either set of links could be broken in the future. Other news sites might assign their articles a numerical ID and stick a bunch of keywords into the URL for SEO, so that links with other text before/after the number redirect correctly to the article; in those cases it might also be beneficial to store the ID separately. There are definitely more than 200 NYT articles so it seems reasonable to create a property for it, particularly since NYT articles may be published elsewhere (e.g. articles with PubMed identifiers; syndicated articles by news agencies). Jc86035 (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
    Surely the URL property can take more than one value, so I am unclear why this couldn't be added there. Or, if it is useful to distinguish, should there be a general property for an item's short url, if that's the issue? Dominic (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Guardian article ID (P6085), the equivalent to this property for The Guardian (Q11148), has been created. Jc86035 (talk) 15:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Does NYT refer to this anywhere as an identifier, or is it purely a string found in the URLs and we are inferring it is used as an identifier? Is there evidence this string unlikely to change or go away in the same way as unique identifier? At the very least, I am uncomfortable inventing a name for an identifier that is not used as such in the real world, and would call this "New York Times short URL code" or something like that. Dominic (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Dominic: As with The Guardian article ID (P6085), if both the short URLs and long URLs work correctly, I would think that they are equally valid as identifiers. The 2009 article announcing the launch of the short URLs doesn't refer to them as stable identifiers, although if the links continue to function then they will obviously remain unique. Jc86035 (talk) 18:02, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    Sure, I get that. I think there is a difference in meaning between a randomly generated code used in generating short URLs and an identifier in the authority control sense (which is how this seems to be proposed). Technically, every web property's URLs are unique, since that's how the web operates. But that does not make them identifiers. Dominic (talk) 22:19, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Dominic: Is there much of a technical distinction between this and, say, ASIN (P5749) or YouTube video ID (P1651), other than that the others don't redirect? Almost all numerical/hexadecimal identifiers on Wikidata are either randomly or chronologically assigned; and the NYT servers that operate the short URLs could arguably be called (and would probably have to contain) a database. Jc86035 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Url's are good enough for the purpose and I don't see the need to add article ID urls for all sorts of newswebsites. ChristianKl❫ 13:50, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    @ChristianKl: ... so should The Guardian article ID (P6085) be proposed for deletion? Jc86035 (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
    I don't think that property should exist either. ChristianKl❫ 14:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

LEGO design ID[edit]

   Done: LEGO design ID (P6247) (Talk and documentation)
Descriptionunique identifier of a LEGO brick design
RepresentsLEGO design ID (Q58781582)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainLEGO brick design (Q58783661)
Allowed valuesregex: \d{4,5}
Example 1"Angle element, 0 degrees" → 32013
Example 2"Brick 2x4" → 3001
Example 3"Cross axle, extension" → 6538
Number of IDs in source~3,700
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/LEGO set ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/LEGO element ID

Motivation[edit]

LEGO is a globally well known toy construction set with significant influence. Approximately 75 billion bricks are sold each year in 140 countries. This property request allows modelling of the LEGO products which have been produced since 1949. Documentation of LEGO brick designs is widespread due to the significant impact LEGO products have had on the world. Dhx1 (talk) 12:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Dhx1: Is it clear that we should have items for these? − Pintoch (talk) 10:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Pintoch: There is a lot of freely available information describing these designs (Lego publish instruction manuals online for free use which include part inventories, but there are other independent sites doing the same). This is a niche property proposal, but one which could become quite well used, particularly if 3D CAD models are uploaded to Commons. Dhx1 (talk) 12:17, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Creating this in a few days unless anyone opposes in the meantime. − Pintoch (talk) 14:24, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Pintoch, Dhx1: ✓ Done: LEGO design ID (P6247). − Pintoch (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

LEGO element ID[edit]

Descriptionunique identifier of a LEGO brick design with a specific colour
RepresentsLEGO element ID (Q58781765)
Data typeExternal identifier
DomainLEGO element (Q58783844)
Allowed valuesregex: \d{6,7}
Example 1"Cross axle, extension, bright bluish green" → 4112932
Example 2"Cross axle, extension, white" → 4113803
Example 3"Arch 1x4x2, earth orange" → 4187362
Number of IDs in source~50,000 to ~70,000
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/LEGO set ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/LEGO design ID

Motivation[edit]

LEGO is a globally well known toy construction set with significant influence. Approximately 75 billion bricks are sold each year in 140 countries. This property request allows modelling of the LEGO products which have been produced since 1949. Documentation of LEGO elements is widespread due to the significant impact LEGO products have had on the world. Dhx1 (talk) 12:44, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment do we have ANY of these lego pieces in wikidata so far? It seems maybe this is a little too detailed a level? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @ArthurPSmith: I am not aware of any LEGO elements existing in Wikidata at the moment. It is a niche property proposal, but one that helps support LEGO set (Q58780257) items and make these descriptions more detailed--not just how many parts, but how many parts of each colour in a set, how many parts shared by other LEGO sets, the oldest part design reused by the set, trends in use of colours and designs of parts, etc. Dhx1 (talk) 12:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:44, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Creating this in a few days unless anybody opposes. − Pintoch (talk) 14:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ArthurPSmith, Pintoch, Dhx1: ✓ Done: LEGO element ID (P6248). − Pintoch (talk) 10:23, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic Work ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for published work in Microsoft Academic
RepresentsMicrosoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaincreative work (Q17537576)
Allowed values[1-9]\d{7,9}
Example 1Computational analysis of deposition and translocation of inhaled nicotine and acrolein in the human body with e-cigarette puffing topographies (Q58132177)2792937454
Example 2Doping silica beyond limits with laser plasma for active photonic materials (Q58420606)2206799855
Example 3Networks, Complexity and Internet Regulation (Q58622482)1498221862
Sourcehttps://academic.microsoft.com/
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in source209,792,741
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See alsoproposals for Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671)

Motivation[edit]

Connect Wikidata to the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph. Like the proposals above for Dimensions properties, this will help to disambiguate authors and identify related items. Microsoft Academic (Q28136779) is free and offers API access to the graph. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 05:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose identifier scheme seems to be the same for all four proposals. Just make one for all four. --- Jura 08:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support having distinct identifiers is good practice and will help enforce more meaningful constraints, keep track of coverage for each type, add third-party resolvers which might only work for a given type. − Pintoch (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean properties, not identifiers. No it's not good practice to split an identifier among different properties merely because one doesn't want to use complex constraints. --- Jura 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 07:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I hadn't noticed that the formatter URL is the same for all 4 proposed ID's - I think it would make some sense to combine them, even though as Pintoch notes above there are some downsides. I'd be ok either way. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
    • The proposal is intended to be for "paper" - do you think this is the correct scope for a property?. It would be helpful if you would state which identifiers are not covered by the proposals if you think it is necessary to discuss them at this time. Would this lack of coverage be a problem if we just made a single identifier as you suggested above? Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 21:07, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • If you do a single property, all of their entity types are covered. --- Jura 08:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Good point. I think complete coverage of the entity types does make a single property a better option than the four properties I proposed. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 10:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic Source ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for a academic journal, book series or conference proceedings in Microsoft Academic
RepresentsMicrosoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainpublication (Q732577)
Allowed values\d{8,10}
Example 1Nature (Q180445)137773608
Example 2PLoS ONE (Q564954)202381698
Example 3Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Q924044)106296714
Example 4International Conference on Communications (Q6049597)1130451194
Sourcehttps://academic.microsoft.com/
Number of IDs in source48,647 Journals, 4,336 Conferences
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See alsoproposals for Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671)
VIAF ID (P214)

Motivation[edit]

Connect Wikidata to the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph. Like the proposals above for Dimensions properties, this will help to disambiguate authors and identify related items. Microsoft Academic (Q28136779) is free and offers API access to the graph. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 06:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose identifier scheme seems to be the same for all four proposals. Just make one for all four. --- Jura 08:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support having distinct identifiers is good practice and will help enforce more meaningful constraints, keep track of coverage for each type, add third-party resolvers which might only work for a given type. − Pintoch (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean properties, not identifiers. No it's not good practice to split an identifier among different properties merely because one doesn't want to use complex constraints. --- Jura 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks like the website is having issues - all the examples lead to error pages for me (for a few days at least) − Pintoch (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is this what they call "venues" (=journals, conference series) or also "events" (conference instances)? From the frequencies, "venues" seems likely. What happens with events? --- Jura 11:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, it is proposed as an identifier for journals and conferences series. Conference instances would be handled like journal volumes i.e. the volume (or instance) number and date of occurrence would be stored in the metadata of each paper published in the conference series. How would this be modelled if we have only a single identifier? Can you provide an example of the constraints that could be applied please? Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 21:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • In their logic, each conference has an identifier. This way the item for the conference can hold the identifier. A single property has the advantage that single-value constraint and distinct-value constraints can be applied reliably. Similarly, if we split VIAF into several Wikidata properties, we couldn't be sure that the same identifier isn't used in several properties. --- Jura 08:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic Author ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for authors in Microsoft Academic
RepresentsMicrosoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed values\d{8,10}
Example 1Paul Emery (Q19859634)2144675545
Example 2Jürgen Habermas (Q76357)2038147313
Example 3Noam Chomsky (Q9049)2049461923
Sourcehttps://academic.microsoft.com/
Number of IDs in source253,401,752 authors
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See alsoproposals for

Motivation[edit]

Connect Wikidata to the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph. Like the proposals above for Dimensions properties, this will help to disambiguate authors and identify related items. Microsoft Academic (Q28136779) is free and offers API access to the graph. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 06:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose identifier scheme seems to be the same for all four proposals. Just make one for all four. --- Jura 08:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support having distinct identifiers is good practice and will help enforce more meaningful constraints, keep track of coverage for each type, add third-party resolvers which might only work for a given type. − Pintoch (talk) 11:54, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean properties, not identifiers. No it's not good practice to split an identifier among different properties merely because one doesn't want to use complex constraints. --- Jura 09:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ··· 🌸 Rachmat04 · 07:49, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks like the website is having issues - all the examples lead to error pages for me (for a few days at least) − Pintoch (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Microsoft Academic Institution ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier for an institution in Microsoft Academic
RepresentsMicrosoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainorganization (Q43229)
Allowed values\d{8,10}
Example 1University of Leeds (Q503424)130828816
Example 2Goethe University Frankfurt (Q50662)114090438
Example 3Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Q49108)63966007
Example 4IBM (Q37156)1341412227
Sourcehttps://academic.microsoft.com/
Number of IDs in source25,431 institutions
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URLhttps://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See alsoproposals for

Motivation[edit]

Connect Wikidata to the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph. Like the proposals above for Dimensions properties, this will help to disambiguate authors and identify related items. Microsoft Academic (Q28136779) is free and offers API access to the graph. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 06:41, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support I didn't know they had such id's, that sounds useful. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose identifier scheme seems to be the same for all four proposals. Just make one for all four. --- Jura 08:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support very interested to see how this compares with our existing institution ids for scholarly affiliations. Having distinct identifiers for each type is good practice and will help enforce more meaningful constraints, keep track of coverage for each type, add third-party resolvers which might only work for a given type. − Pintoch (talk) 11:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
    • I suppose you mean properties, not identifiers. No it's not good practice to split an identifier among different properties merely because one doesn't want to use complex constraints. --- Jura 09:04, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment looks like the website is having issues - all the examples lead to error pages for me (for a few days at least) − Pintoch (talk) 22:26, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The Power of Semantic Search: between the Top 10 Institutions in Philosophy, Bosch is the 6th and Siemens the 7th. --Gerwoman (talk) 10:13, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

HABS ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier assigned by the Historic American Buildings Survey
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed valuestext
Example 1Georgetown Car Barn (Q57231557)DC-125
Example 2Healy Hall (Q4269513)DC-248
Example 3NY-4-16-C
Sourcehttp://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See also

Motivation[edit]

The Historic American Building Survey is useful because it provides detailed information about historic buildings and sites throughout the United States. It is also authoritative, as the information was compiled by experts working for the National Park Service. It is useful to have the HABS number assigned to buildings and sites to allow editors to retrieve information from the survey. Ergo Sum (talk) 01:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Could you provide links for your examples, please? --Gerwoman (talk) 18:10, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Gerwoman: Added links. These are not to the HABS inventory itself because, as far as I know, there's no single compendium of the surveys; the closest thing is the database maintained by the Library of Congress, so that's what I've linked to. Ergo Sum (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't this use the identifier datatype? --Yair rand (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I was trying to create a MnM catalog, but it's difficult for me to find any correlation between the HABS id and the control id assigned by the LoC:
  • --Gerwoman (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Ergo Sum: could you add Qids for your examples? See Wikidata:Property proposal/OeBL 1815-1950 ID for an example of a proposal that does this − Pintoch (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Pintoch: I've added Qids for two of them; the third does not have a Wikidata entry. Ergo Sum (talk) 04:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question is this the same as Wikidata:Property proposal/HABS building ID ? --- Jura 09:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

HAER ID[edit]

   Under discussion
Descriptionidentifier assigned by the Historic American Engineering Record
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed valuestext
Example 1AK,20-MCAR,1--145 (CT)
Example 2AK,20-MCAR,1--12
Example 3WY-102-3
Sourcehttp://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See also

Motivation[edit]

The Historic American Engineering Record is useful because it provides detailed information about historic infrastructure throughout the United States. It is also authoritative, as the information was compiled by experts working for the National Park Service, the American Society of Civil Engineers, and the Library of Congress. It is useful to have the HAER number assigned to objects to allow editors to retrieve information from the record.

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 08:18, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
  • These seem to be identifiers for individual photographs, not the infrastructure objects. What items do you expect these would be assigned to? Andrew Gray (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
    • Is it a problem to import item-level collection data, and not just authority files? Or are you just commenting on the fact that there are not yet any items in Wikidata to which this property could be applied in practice? Dominic (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Hmm - I read the proposal description as ultimately being about the infrastructure, not the images (though it's a bit vaguely worded). Is the plan actually to create an item for every photograph in the catalogue? Andrew Gray (talk) 18:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
        • @Andrew Gray: Yes the id would correlate with the infrastructure, not the photo. It just so happens that the way the id is currently being used by the Library of Congress is in its photo catalogue. For instance, there are some ids that correspond to more than one architectural or infrastructural item (perhaps because it was assigned to the batch of objects photographed at one tie). Ergo Sum (talk) 04:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Is this the same as Wikidata:Property proposal/HAER building ID ? --- Jura 09:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

NARA record group number and NARA collection identifier[edit]

NARA record group number
   Under discussion
Descriptionthe unique number assigned to a National Archives and Records Administration record group
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainonly items that are instances of collection (Q2668072)
Allowed values[1-9]\d{0,2} (for now)
Example 1Records of District Courts of the United States (Q59296199) → 21
Example 2Records of the Patent and Trademark Office (Q59405143) → 241
Example 3Records of U.S. Strategic Command (Q59408145) → 535
Sourcehttps://catalog.archives.gov
Planned useI will add the complete set of numbers to their items.
Number of IDs in source568
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)
See also
NARA collection identifier
   Under discussion
Descriptionthe unique identifier assigned to a National Archives and Records Administration collection
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainonly items that are instances of collection (Q2668072)
Allowed values.{1,10} - any string of up to 10 characters is allowable (all current identifiers appear to contain some combination of letters, numbers, a space, and/or a hyphen)
Example 1Korean War Collection (Q59480206) → HST-KWC
Example 2Douglas MacArthur Papers (Q59480207) → DDE-1294
Example 3Dwight D. Eisenhower Library Small Manuscripts Collection (Q59480209) → DDE-1207
Sourcehttps://catalog.archives.gov
Planned useI will add the complete set of identifiers to their items.
Number of IDs in source4545
Expected completenesseventually complete (Q21873974)

Motivation[edit]

There are over 22 million catalog records in the US National Archives catalog, but just 568 of them describe a record group (Q59294700) and 4545 describe a collection (Q59294612). These are the top-level record groupings to which all the other records in the catalog belong (as either children, children of children, or children of children of children). Because of their significance, they all have their own identifiers, separate from the general US National Archives Identifier (P1225) (which is used for all entities in the catalog, including descriptions, authorities, and terms), so that they can also be listed and identified within their own set.

The record group number is a set of sequential integers from 1 to 568 that represent the order in which they were established (more here). I have recently created items for all of these record groups, but have been unable to add their actual numbers to those items yet. The collection identifier is an alphanumeric string (sometimes with hyphens or spaces in it), which, similarly, represent the top-level groupings. I am also going to add all collection descriptions to Wikidata and would similarly like them to use NARA collection identifiers.

A record group is a grouping of records with a shared provenance (in practice, based on the US federal agency the records come from), while a collection is an artificial grouping based on some other shared characteristic (generally, these are donated or presidential materials). I am combining these two proposals because they are very similar concepts, just two different NARA identifier sets. Dominic (talk) 00:41, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment@Dominic: Please make examples links David (talk) 07:53, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support both. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question @Multichill: Is the first one different from the ones we deleted some time ago (see Wikidata:Requests_for_deletions/Archive/2016/Properties/1#P1223)? Unfortunately, property talk pages of these were deleted, so it's hard to tell what they were about. --- Jura 10:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • More info at User_talk:Dominic#NARA_properties. Names of the old properties: NARA person ID (P1222), NARA organization ID (P1223), NARA geographic ID (P1224) & NARA specific records type ID (P1226). Multichill (talk) 10:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • NARA used to have many different catalog identifiers (for different types of authorities as well as the descriptions), but these were all unified into a single set. This is different from the ones being proposed here, which are used independently of (and predate) the catalog system. Dominic (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • Are the numbers of the first identifier proposed above included in US National Archives Identifier (P1225) or one of the deleted properties? --- Jura 14:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
      • @Jura1: No, these identifiers are unrelated. If you look at the NARA catalog record for the first example, you will see that it has both a NAID (P1225), which is also in the catalog URL, and a record group number. The record group number is a separate identifier which is used only to identify and designate the order of the record groups. the other deleted properties you are talking about were just from when the multiple catalog identifiers were merged into one unique ID. Dominic (talk) 16:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Ok. --- Jura 09:29, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

WordLift ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionWordLift ID, a Linked Open Data permanent ID of publicly available entities curated by online publishers and distributed in various formats.
Data typeURL
Example 1WordLift (Q31998763)http://data.wordlift.io/wl0215/entity/wordlift
Example 2Salzburg (Q43325)http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland
Example 3cryptocurrency (Q13479982)http://data.thenextweb.com/tnw/entity/cryptocurrency
Example 4bilingualism (Q10779529)http://data.wordlift.io/wl0472/entity/bilinguismo_2
Example 5Audible.com (Q366651)http://data.wordlift.io/wl0826/entity/audible
Example 6Microsoft (Q2283)http://data.windowsreport.com/windowsreport/entity/microsoft
Number of IDs in source107,910

Motivation[edit]

WordLift ID refers to 5 stars linked data with permanent URIs publicly available online. WordLift's datasets are also published on the LOD Cloud and interlinked with other public datasets. Devbug (talk) 10:01, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - Cyberandy 11:21, 06 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks useful enough to me - Edei 14:10, 06 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Good and useful Content - Mreichh 14:22, 06 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Positive - Gencuo
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Devbug: Your examples are incomplete - properties relate a wikidata item to a value, so what are the wikidata items associated with the URL values you've listed in your examples? ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @ArthurPSmith: The property expresses the value of the permanent URI of equivalent entities according to the Linked Data principles, e.g. http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland is the ID of the Salzburgerland region in Austria same as 2766823 on GeoNames or Q43325 on Wikidata. Maybe external-id is more appropriate as type and format value can be set to URL. --Devbug (talk) 19:55, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I've updated the proposal to external-id with allowed values of URL. --Devbug (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
      • Well, I think URL was fine as a datatype here. What's missing are the QID's associated with these URL's - please add them to the examples. Look at other property proposals to see how it's done. ArthurPSmith (talk) 01:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
        • Got it, I reverted to url data type and added the QID's. --Devbug (talk) 09:45, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 09:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This can be very useful - Domus.aurea999 10:41, 07 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks great to me Mark 14:27, 07 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Would be a great addition Julian 15:41, 07 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Questions: How is this different from a generic linked data URI? Is this part of a proprietary system? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Pigsonthewing, ArthurPSmith, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: I've a strong feeling that some of the support votes above might be (sock/meat)puppets, given that their votes here are the only contributions of theirs on Wikidata and the comments attached to them seem a bit sketchy. Mahir256 (talk) 07:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mahir256: I myself am David Riccitelli (Q32000705). I believe @Multichill: can vouch for me, having met at SEMANTiCS 2018 (Q50349922) where he introduced me to the property proposal process. --Devbug (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
    • @Mahir256: I expect there was some canvassing at least. However, good linked data tools are a good thing in principle. According to en:WordLift this is from a company founded a little less than 2 years ago. @Devbug: Can you describe how this approach differs from other WordPress solutions, for example the PoolParty plugin? Asserting that a given entity only has one linked data URL seems to require some sort of centralized management, no? Where is that coming from, what are the licensing rules etc? ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: I do think, however, that we should consider striking the votes of the two people immediately above your initial comment and the three votes right below David's support vote for being socks. Mahir256 (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: WordLift (Q31998763) started in 2011 within the IKS project of the European Framework Program 7 (FP7). It officially opened to the public in 2017. WordLift is the only solution for WordPress (Q13166) (as far as I know) that fully complies with the Linked data principles and the 5 stars of Linked data. In fact datasets are listed in the LOD Cloud diagram. Entity management is decentralized and happens within WordPress (Q13166), structured data is pushed to Apache Marmotta. WordLift provides also interlinking with other datasets (including but not limited to Wikidata (Q2013), DBpedia (Q465), GeoNames (Q830106), ..., by means of owl:sameAs and schema:sameAs) which is the 5th rule of Linked data "Link your data to other people's data to provide context" (and a requirement to be listed among the 1,231 datasets of the LOD Cloud). --Devbug (talk) 17:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Devbug: Not sure what you mean by "deceentralized" here. There's one Marmotta installation that WordLift is using, right? So every valid URI must be listed in that central location? Anyway, it sounds like (given the "owl:sameAs" comment) you must allow multiple URI's for the same entity, so it's not really an ID either, is it? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: By decentralized I mean that the actual content is managed and stored in various WordPress instances as semi-structured data (title, content, meta fields). Because WordPress is unable to provide a performant and effective triple store, we copy the contents in the form of triples to Marmotta (which may provide also additional features, e.g. SPARQL, ldpath). I am not sure I understand the question about the ID, I'll try to give an example: http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland is the ID for Salzburgerland like Salzburg (Q43325) in Wikidata, 2766823 in GeoNames, http://dbpedia.org/resource/Salzburg_(state) in DBpedia. Wikidata uses GeoNames ID (P1566) to state GeoNames ID and GeoNames uses the pseudo language code "wkdt" to state Wikidata's QID. --Devbug (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Devbug: Sorry, "not an ID" is not the right way to express what I was thinking. But just to be clear, for your Salzburg (Q43325) example there would be at least 2 (salzburgland and dbpedia) and maybe 3 (including geonames) or more (?) correct values for this proposed "WordLift ID"? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Ah, no, the correct value for "WordLift ID" would be http://open.salzburgerland.com/de/entity/salzburgerland just like 2766823 is for GeoNames ID (P1566), Salzburg-state is for Quora topic ID (P3417), etc. --Devbug (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
And the central service is deciding what those special URI's are, ok. Is there any mechanism to confirm (a lookup service?) that somebody has set the right URI? We might want to treat this as an external ID with a formatter URL if there's something that works for that... ArthurPSmith (talk) 23:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: Currently there's no lookup service, but we could provide several, e.g. one that validates a URI, one that autocompletes a URI, ... can you point me to examples of other lookup services? Initially I looked at the formatter, I am not sure it's fit, because the hostname part of the URI may be variable, i.e. by default we use http://data.wordlift.io/datasetname as base URI, however publishers can provide their own custom domain, for instance http://open.salzburgerland.com, http://data.thenextweb.com, http://dati.greenpeace.it/ and so forth. We can also prepopulate and keep the ID in sync from WordLift's side using Wikidata API. --Devbug (talk) 07:20, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@ArthurPSmith: On behalf of Wikidata:Property_proposal/Generic should I set status=ready on the proposal ? --Devbug (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • @Devbug, Mahir256: I marked this as ready - I still have some curiosity about how it actually works in practice but hopefully we'll see how this is used and learn from that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting question.svg Question Isn't this duplicating data we should already have? --- Jura 18:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jura: Which property are you referring to? Can you make an example of data that would be duplicated? --Devbug (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
  • It's a question on my side. Can you give a sample of data that wouldn't be duplicated? --- Jura 09:27, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jura: For example Salzburger Bauernherbst provides a description, the list of performers, the start and end dates and the relations with other entities that aren't present in Wikidata. --Devbug (talk) 15:46, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

iTunes music movie ID[edit]

Descriptionidentifier for a concert film or other music-related film in iTunes
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainfilm (Q11424)
Allowed values[1-9]\d*
Example
Sourcehttps://itunes.apple.com/us
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URLhttps://itunes.apple.com/us/music-movie/$1
See alsoiTunes music video ID (P5655)

Motivation[edit]

Rather unfortunately I could only find one extant item that has this particular iTunes Store (Q9593) identifier. (I've since created another.) There are other films with this identifier but none of them seem to be notable enough to have received Wikipedia articles, so new items would have to be created for them (many should be Wikidata-notable due to having IMDb identifiers, as well as scattered coverage by music websites and Apple/technology websites). Jc86035 (talk) 17:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ZI Jony, Deansfa, Jc86035, Pigsonthewing, Rachmat04: ✓ Done: iTunes music movie ID (P6250). − Pintoch (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Vocabolario Treccani ID[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionID for lexemes
Representsno label (Q3712212)
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainlexemes
Example 1banale (L18776)http://www.garzantilinguistica.it/ricerca/?q=banale
Example 2banalità (L18780)http://www.garzantilinguistica.it/ricerca/?q=banalità
Example 3banalizzare (L18784)http://www.garzantilinguistica.it/ricerca/?q=banalizzare
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Planned usesporadical use on some new lexemes; maybe using a bot to import it on existing lexemes
Formatter URLhttp://www.garzantilinguistica.it/ricerca/?q=$1
See alsoOther Italian dictionary: Vocabolario Treccani ID (P5844)

Motivation[edit]

Garzanti Linguistica is a useful online dictionary of Italian language. --Epìdosis 09:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

Hymnary.org page[edit]

   Under discussion
DescriptionPage for this item on Hymnary.org
RepresentsHymnary.org (Q18206550)
Data typeURL (or external ID I guess?)-invalid datatype (not in Module:i18n/datatype)
Domainhymn texts, hymn tunes, hymnals, authors, instances (i.e. editions),
Allowed valuesURL of the form https://hymnary.org/*
Example 1Our God, Our Help in Ages Past (Q7110660)https://hymnary.org/text/our_god_our_help_in_ages_past_watts
Example 2Isaac Watts (Q537034)https://hymnary.org/person/Watts_Isaac
Example 3The Army and Navy Hymnal (Q50308756)https://hymnary.org/hymnal/ANH1921
Example 4Our God, Our Help in Ages Past (Q57952536)https://hymnary.org/hymn/ANH1921/1
Example 5St. Anne (Q59613384)https://hymnary.org/tune/st_anne_croft
Planned useAuthority control for relevant items linked to Wikisource

Motivation[edit]

Public database of hymnological information that would be useful to link with WD contents especially in collaboration with the Wikisources Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support; Regards, ZI Jony (Talk) 17:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support David (talk) 07:15, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: Why doesn't this have an 'external ID' datatype? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Question: I agree with User:Pigsonthewing. This should probably be a 'external ID' datatype. Todrobbins (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Answer: because I don't know what 'external ID' datatypes are, and each database item has a unique URL... so URL was the best option I knew of. If 'external ID' is better then let's do it. I've updated the proposal accordingly. Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)