Wikidata:Property proposal/Microsoft Academic Work ID

Microsoft Academic ID

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

   Done: Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) (Talk and documentation)

Description	identifier for published work in Microsoft Academic
Represents	Microsoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	creative work (Q17537576), human (Q5), organization (Q43229), publication (Q732577) and more
Allowed values	[1-9]\d{7,9}
Example 1	Computational analysis of deposition and translocation of inhaled nicotine and acrolein in the human body with e-cigarette puffing topographies (Q58132177) → 2792937454
Example 2	Doping silica beyond limits with laser plasma for active photonic materials (Q58420606) → 2206799855
Example 3	Networks, Complexity and Internet Regulation (Q58622482) → 1498221862
Example 4	Nature (Q180445) → 137773608
Example 7	International Conference on Communications (Q6049597) → 1130451194
Example 8	Paul Emery (Q19859634) → 2144675545
Example 9	University of Leeds (Q503424) → 130828816
Example 10	Goethe University Frankfurt (Q50662) → 114090438
Example 11	Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Q49108) → 63966007
Example 12	IBM (Q37156) → 1341412227
Source	https://academic.microsoft.com/
External links	Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Number of IDs in source	209,792,741 works, 25,431 institutions, 48,647 Journals, 4,336 Conferences, ...
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See also	proposals for Microsoft Academic Source ID Microsoft Academic Work ID Microsoft Academic Author ID Microsoft Academic Institution ID → Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671)

Motivation

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

•  Support David (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Support ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
•  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)
•  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)
•  Support. ··· Rachmat04 · ☕ 07:48, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
•  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)

•  Comment Sorry for being unresponsive. I thought four properties would be the better option for the reasons stated above by Pintoch but I am open to the possibility of a single identifier. Perhaps worth thinking about the future - the preview on Microsoft Academic is using a different URL format which would necessitate separate properties, for example - Computational analysis of deposition and translocation of inhaled nicotine and acrolein in the human body with e-cigarette puffing topographies (Q58132177) → https://preview.academic.microsoft.com/paper/2792937454/. Not sure if/when a URL change will occur though. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 13:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)
•  Question is this for what they call "paper" or "publication"? There is also a question about scope and label at Microsoft Academic Source ID which conflats two or three entity types. There seem to be identifiers that aren't covered by any of the four proposals. --- Jura 11:25, 30 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)
•  Support ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
• @ChristianKl, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Rachmat04: It seems to me that there is a preference (including from the proposer) for one single property for all types (see other proposals), so I have merged all proposals into this one and will create this property soon unless there are is any opposition. − Pintoch (talk) 16:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ChristianKl, ArthurPSmith, Pintoch, Rachmat04, Jura1:  Done: Microsoft Academic ID (P6366). − Pintoch (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Sic19, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, ChristianKl, ArthurPSmith, Pintoch, Rachmat04: I described 3 data access options: rleational dump, RDF dump (still has some deficiencies) and graph API: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P6366#MAG_Data_Access. Let's get ready to rumble!!! --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 09:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)