Wikidata:Property proposal/identifiant des collections du musée de Bretagne

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

musée de Bretagne identifiant collections ID[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Descriptionidentifier for an object in the collection of the Brittany Museum, France
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainwork (Q386724)
Allowed valuesletters and numbers (regex to be refined)
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Formatter URL$1
Robot and gadget jobsthere is contact with the museum for harvesting this website

Ash Crow
Thierry Caro
Nomen ad hoc
Pictogram voting comment.svg Notified participants of WikiProject France

Propriété pour lier vers le site des collections du musée de Bretagne. L'identifiant fonctionne suivant le principe du Archival Resource Key (Q2860403). VIGNERON (talk) 12:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportAyack (talk) 12:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Pymouss (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg SupportEnvlh (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Framawiki (please notify !) (talk) Sorry for my bad English :) 17:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: Why not catalog code (P528) / catalog (P972)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:58, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I prefer to have all museum/collection identifiers modelled with inventory number (P217) and collection (P195). Using for some museums a specific property and for other museums a generic property makes querying extremly hard. --Pasleim (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Pasleim globally I agree but did you see what I just wrote above? We already use inventory number (P217) and collection (P195) for these objects, this identifier is not the same thing and is in addition to the inventory number. I don't really see how we can use a general property here. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - I came here from a facebook discussion - this museum shares their metadata CC-0 and it looks like it has pretty good long catalog entries from what I can tell, with several detail images clickable from the entry. These are good enough for a separate property because many of these important historical items are not described anywhere else than in Rennes. See e.g. a painting Le Maire de Rennes (Q17393199) and a coin coin of Anne of Brittany (Q17280208) where I put the url in described at URL (P973) for now. Jane023 (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I support the creation of this property. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 16:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support arguments below/ci-après ~ Seb35 [^_^] 13:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
    English: Additionally I see some short-term arguments to create a property in the section "Identifiers" (versus using a generic property using a qualifier): 1. as of now it’s easier to link to the external website with the current Wikibase software, and 2. easier to use in SPARQL requests; and some long-term arguments: 3. ARKs are just identifiers for the URL, with a common naming schema but it’s not really different compared to other external identifiers, 4. ARKs are stable identifiers managed by some preservation institutions, hence I find it more logical to place them in the section "Identifiers" in order to link to the external website instead of the section "Statements" which can be better used to describe the concept itself.
    français : De plus je vois quelques arguments à court terme pour créer une propriété dans la section "Identifiants" (versus utiliser une propriété générique en utilisant un qualifieur) : 1. pour l’instant c’est plus facile pour faire un lien vers un site web externe avec le logiciel Wikibase actuel, et 2. c’est plus facile à utiliser dans les requêtes SPARQL ; et quelques arguments à long terme : 3. les ARKs sont juste des identifiants pour une URL, avec un schéma de nommage commun mais ça n’est pas réllement différent des autres identifiants externes, 4. les ARKs sont des identifiants stables gérés par quelque institution de conservation, je trouve donc plus logique de les placer dans la section "Identifiants" pour faire un lien vers le site externe plutôt que dans la section "Déclarations" qui serait mieux utilisée pour décrire le concept lui-même.
@VIGNERON, Ayack, Pymouss, Envlh, Framawiki, Pigsonthewing: ✓ Done --Fralambert (talk) 14:48, 9 October 2017 (UTC)