Wikidata:Property proposal/HAER ID
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
HAER ID[edit]
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control
| Description | identifier assigned by the Historic American Engineering Record |
|---|---|
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | buildings and structures |
| Example 1 | Hoover Dam (Q172822) → NV-27 |
| Example 2 | George Washington Bridge (Q125821) → NY,31-NEYO,161 |
| Example 3 | Golden Gate Bridge (Q44440) → CAL,38-SANFRA,140 |
| Source | http://www.loc.gov/pictures/collection/hh/ |
| Expected completeness | eventually complete (Q21873974) |
| Formatter URL | http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?q=$1&co-hh |
| 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]
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)
- @Ergo Sum: I think it would really help to see some examples here - as it is, two of the IDs listed above seem to be variants of "HAER AK,20-MCAR,1", the same site, with photograph number suffixes. Digging around fings this master record which gives a "Survey number: HAER AK-1" and describes "HAER AK,20-MCAR,1-" as simply a call number (ie identifier in that particular collection). This suggests "HAER AK-1" might be more appropriate for the site. Andrew Gray (talk) 20:46, 19 December 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)
- 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)
- 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)
Question Is this the same as Wikidata:Property proposal/HAER building ID ? --- Jura 09:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
- @Jura1: Yes, I do believe so. Ergo Sum (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Comment The proposal is incomplete: please fill in clearly the domain field in the proposal template, and also provide proper examples that show what Wikidata items (or Commons files) the above statements would be applied to, to clarify how this property is intended to be used. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- @ArthurPSmith: I've added examples and the domain. Ergo Sum (talk) 17:54, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
- Ok, thanks, it looks ready to me then. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see why the two should be separate (see discussion last time). --- Jura 13:59, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Dominic, Ergo Sum, ArthurPSmith, Andrew Gray, Jura1: 
Done: P6428 (P6428). − Pintoch (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Pintoch: Thank you. Can you also add issued by (P2378) --> Historic American Engineering Record (Q56736570) to the property? Ergo Sum (talk) 20:51, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Ergo Sum: unless I am missing something you should be able to edit this property directly - feel free to do add that and anything else that is missing. − Pintoch (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Pintoch: You're right; apologies. Ergo Sum (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
- @Ergo Sum: unless I am missing something you should be able to edit this property directly - feel free to do add that and anything else that is missing. − Pintoch (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)