Wikidata:Property proposal/Polish cultural heritage register number

Polish cultural heritage register number

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Place

   Done: Polish cultural heritage register number (P3424) (Talk and documentation)

Description	Monument number in Polish cultural heritage register
Data type	External identifier
Template parameter	eg. "zabytek" in pl:Szablon:Budynek infobox
Domain	cultural heritage monuments in Poland
Allowed values	A-[0-9]*, A/[0-9]*, [0-9]*/[0-9]*, [0-9]*/A, [0-9]*, probably many others... Values are not unique.
Example	Vincent de Paul Basilica in Bydgoszcz (Q9167816) → "A/468/1-2" + qualifier start time (P580) → "1996-05-30"
Source	Official govt lists (.pdf), lists of monuments in Polish Wikipedia
Robot and gadget jobs	no

Motivation

Monument number in Polish cultural heritage register. Yarl (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Support --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:08, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Oppose If, as stated "Values are not unique", then there is no use in this as an external identifier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm open to any solution that will enable adding this number to wikidata. Changing datatype to string maybe? Yarl (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Why? What's the purpose of adding a non-unique identifier? Why are non-unique identifiers issued in the first place - is there some other context (a prefix? a region?) that makes them unique? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
      • OK, to specify: values are __not guaranteed__ to be unique. It's because these numbers are from analogue era and because they are managed separately per voivodeship of Poland (Q150093) (that's why you can see multiple pdfs in official page). If we filter numbers down to single voivodeship of Poland (Q150093), they should be unique. Yarl (talk) 21:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
        • So the unique ID for the given exaple would be something like Bydgoszcz/A/468/1-2? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)
          • Bydgoszcz is in Kuyavian-Pomeranian Voivodeship (Q54153), so following your example and using ISO 3166-2 code (P300), it can be something like PL-KP/A/468/1-2. Yarl (talk) 12:52, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Thank you. Are there any arguments against using that format? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
              • Technically not, but in my opinion we don't have to modify source data. Instead, if someone want to query data (eg. via API or SPARQL) he can filter results to chosen voivodeship. I'm quite sure it's fairy easy to do. Yarl (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
• If a identifier is unique also depends on the granularity of the representation on Wikidata. As I understand this property the identifier is given to groups off buildings in some cases. For example a castle and it's stables will have the same identifier. If we have separate items for this on Wikidata we either have to give the identifier to both items or create the item for the same grouping. - Still this identifier seems very useful and is being used by an authority. So storing it seems important. --Tobias1984 (talk) 07:14, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Creating a new item for the grouping would seem sensible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
• Andy -- I'm curious, is there a requirement that a property needs to be unique? I would think it is best for an external-id to be consistent with its external source, but maybe I'm misunderstanding something! Slaporte (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
    • thanks! I found that Wikidata:Glossary mentions that external identifier needs to be unique, but still looking if there is any more detail in the docs. Slaporte (talk) 01:42, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
      • So... changing type to string can help? Keep in mind, that value of this property will not be used as a identifier for external website, because there is no such website where they can be used. Yarl (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
•  Support I think it would be helpful to connect a monument to its entry in the Polish cultural heritage register. Slaporte (talk) 18:18, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
• @Pigsonthewing: Are you still opposing the creation? --Tobias1984 (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
  • My original comment still stands, yes, and so does my proposed work-around. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing: I hope I understand the discussion correctly: So the property can be created if we use it in a unique way, creating items for the groups of buildings, where necessary? --Tobias1984 (talk) 18:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

•  Support I don't see any perfect solution to things like this. I would be fine with creating it using the string datatype if there are doubts about whether external-id is correct, because it can be easily converted later (we can't easily go the other way). However we store it, I am very much against inventing our own identifier in order to get a unique string, we should store the actual number. If we need to store extra information, we can already do that using qualifiers. - Nikki (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done I created it an external identifier because it comes from an authority and the mapping to Wikidata items will probably be very close to 1:1 (as for many of our other identifiers which don't have a perfect mapping). If the identifier is used for a grouping of buildings it is advisable to create an item for this grouping. --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)