Wikidata:Property proposal/CDDA designationType

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

designation type[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science

   Not done
Descriptiondesignation type (Q108028209) of the Common Database on Designated Areas as published by the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Q1378198).
Representsdesignation type (Q108028209)
Data typeItem
Domainprotected area (Q473972) in the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Q1378198)
Allowed valuesmore than 700 CDDA designationTypeCode codes (see complementary CDDA designationTypeCode (P9800) property)
Example 1Carrascal de la Font Roja Natural Park (Q9056039)→ natural park (Q107690235)
Example 2Muniellos (Q3457636) → Nature Reserve (Integral) (Q107690284)
Example 3Montaña de Agüimes (Q64075367) → Protected Landscape (Q107691378)
SourceNationally designated areas inventory (Q1116062), database downloadable at [1]
Planned usepopulate elements using Common Database on Designated Areas ID (P4762)
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Robot and gadget jobsprobably not
See alsoCommon Database on Designated Areas ID (P4762) and CDDA designationTypeCode (P9800)
Applicable "stated in"-valueNationally designated areas inventory (Q1116062)
Distinct-values constraintno

Motivación[edit]

The Nationally designated areas inventory (Q1116062) includes lots of details of official protected areas in the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Q1378198). It's hard to characterize a protected area (Q473972) since there are dozens of varieties, a lot of more if you consider all the designations each country uses. These not always can be mapped easily so the EIONET chose to identify each national designation and assigns a unique ID with the designationTypeCode attribute. The European Environment Information and Observation Network (Q1378198) database (more than 60K items) characterize each entry with the designationTypeCode and the IUCN protected areas category (P814). With the proposed property we can use that code for any CDDA included entry. Through the property we can link the protected area with related public office and law references.

This proposal complements with Wikidata:Property proposal/CDDA designationTypeCode.

—Ismael Olea (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Also description for designation type (Q108028209) ("developed by the CDDA to classify protected areas according national regulation") is simply wrong. Designations in question are developed/assigned by national authorities, and CDDA (EIONET) just references and uses these as they are. The same way it's odd to define individual designations like nature reserve (Q108061047) (duplicating Q28055269) by association to CDDA, while CDDA is merely one of several datasets where national designations can be found. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:8CA:CAD8:3CA5:E487 17:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The duplicity of designations, like the case you explain is because it's almost impossible to me the identify en WD the correct ones. Also, it could depend on how wikidaters organize their country data (you know there are more or less sutiles differences). The good thing is the problem is really easy to solve just merging with the correct ones by someone with knowledge about. This is why I added the legal references of each case. I know is not a perfect job but it's a beginning I expect to be useful. Personally I made some effort to detect correct elements but for the most of the languages is near to imposible to me to do without help.
About the labeling/descripting problem, would be great to hear your suggestions. Seems you have better knowledge than me and I'm always open to enhancements 👍 —Ismael Olea (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to drop "CDDA" from propety label, and otherwise not associate given designation to CDDA apart from just providing CDDA designation code among other identifiers. Or rather consider this property proposal redundant to already existing heritage designation (P1435). Above some other more specific label than that of P1435 has been considered, related to natural heritage, but note that CDDA data anyway also references designations that are not for natural heritage, such as code EE25 for cultural heritage. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:4CCD:3CA1:A616:3488 09:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too have mixed feelings about this property, but I see it as similar with IUCN protected areas category (P814) with the main difference that there is usually a 1:1 correspondence between the national protected area type and the ID, so it is somewhat redundand information. But same applies to IUCN category, at least in my experience all items of a given national type have the same IUCN category as well. Extended this property to be heritage designation (P1435) for natural sites IMHO would be a can of worms, as it will make it even easier to declare a geographic feature being the same as a protected area, or putting together different protected areas in one item. Just look at the constraint violations for WDPA/CDDA/Natura2000-ID to see how many wrongly modeled protected areas we have in our database already. Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ahoerstemeier I agree it's a nightmare to describe protected areas in a systematic way in WD. The good thing of the WDPA/CDDA/Natura2000 id's is considering we can't faithfully describe the elements at least we can reduce the ambiguity a bit identifing each area with (more or less) international way. Plus, the CDDA type codes adds a bit of description (something more than IUCN code). The challenge would be to establish a worldwide ontology but it's absolutely out of my current goals. —Ismael Olea (talk) 08:30, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that the use of heritage designation (P1435), or seprate "natural heritage designation" property, would make it easier to mix protected areas and other distinct geographical objects. In most cases where this has happened designations are currently given as P31 values anyway. Also please note that, as pointed out above, WDPA/CDDA include many individual protected objects that are *not* protected areas, and so many of these WDPA/CDDA property constraint violations are in fact false positives, e.g. in case of protected object Labidakivi (Q12368168). Considering this, as far as I can see and as previously explained e.g. here, the use of heritage designation (P1435) would rather help clear things up.
As for IUCN categories, it's true that protected objects of some designations fall into the same IUCN category, but there are also other designations for which it isn't true. For instance, per CDDA data, objects of designation code EE12 are divided between IUCN categories Ib, IV and V. 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:4CCD:3CA1:A616:3488 09:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe adding a restriction in WDPA/CDDA/Natura2000 id properties to be used in P1435 instead of P31 would help to reduce the mess? Or viceversa, whatever gets agreed. I can't have a preference for neither one approach. —Ismael Olea (talk) 10:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Thadguidry (talk) 12:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I find it less confusing without CDDA associated label, and domain not being limited to protected areas makes sense as CDDA as a source includes also designations for individual natural objects that are not areas, as well as cultural heritage designations (references above). But now, with "designation type" label, it's pretty much the same as already existing heritage designation (P1435). 2001:7D0:81DA:F780:ED98:52B1:1627:75F2 07:52, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, somehow the label should specify what the designations apply to and differentiate from P1435. --- Jura 13:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or, simply the existing P1435 property could be used instead of this proposed property. As pointed out above, it is already used for several natural heritage designations, and above I don't see a clear reason why it shouldn't be. 2001:7D0:81C5:A580:708F:5A45:F175:EC01 09:16, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/CDDA_designationType&oldid=1966003554"