Wikidata:Property proposal/identifiant Localisation - Joconde du Service des musées de France

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Joconde location ID

[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

   Withdrawn
Descriptionidentifier for a location in the Service des Musées de France Joconde authority file
Data typeExternal identifier
Domaingovernment agency (Q327333) place (Q98929991) articles of association (Q3497659)
Allowed values\d{1,6}
Example 1Les Toulousains de Toulouse (Q3235777) → [1]
Example 2Archeological site of Alba-la-Romaine (Q3485386) → [2]
Example 3Bibliothèque nationale de France (Q193563) → [3]
Example 4purchasing (Q1369832) → [4]
Sourcehttp://data.culture.fr/thesaurus/
Formatter URLhttp://data.culture.fr/thesaurus/page/ark:/67717/T515-$1/
See also

Motivation

[edit]

Nine of the Joconde database vocabularies of the french ministry of culture were created last year. This proposal concerns five new authority files from the same database that have been released on the national vocabularies platform data.culture. Christelle Molinié (talk) 13:49, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]
@Christelle Molinié: how is purchasing (Q1369832) a location and how is this proposal different from Joconde location ID (P7850)? Multichill (talk) 10:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
same English translation for two different French terms: Localisation / Lieux - Coagulans (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: The issue is they have created separate "controlled" vocabularies for each field within the Joconde database, without any notion of entity, nor any regard for semantics :( So here we have the thesaurus for the LOCA field in the database, which contains the current location of the artwork (both the institution and its located in the administrative territorial entity (P131)), as well as optional details like method of acquisition (thus purchasing (Q1369832)), or sometimes state of conservation (P5816), heritage designation (P1435), ...
On the other hand, one wikidata entity can have separate unrelated entries in different vocabularies depending on its use. For example Toulouse (Q7880) is T515-374 in this vocabulary when used for an artwork located in Musée des Augustins (Q2711480), but will be T84-1868 with Joconde location ID (P7850) when used as location of creation (P1071), and also T115-2593 with Joconde discovery ID (P7960) when used as location of discovery (P189) on an artefact, or T523-12817 in the below proposal for "representation ID" when used as depicts (P180)... Yes, it's a mess and I understand why you're lost... --Nono314 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If it's such a mess are you sure you want to create a property for it? Doe Wikidata really benefit from linking to this? Multichill (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you're asking me, I've never been a big fan, some even called me "hard" because I consider people in the ministry try to follow current trends but without any vision... I can't see any benefit linking to hollow far-fetched thesauri, especially until they are actually used in artwork entries: then at least this would enable mapping source data to ours more easily. But if we talk specifically about this thesaurus, the institution is the only field already unambiguously mapped (through Museofile ID (P539)), so no real expected benefit. --Nono314 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Christelle Molinié:, back to the subject one year later ;) Given the experience we now have with previous identifiers, we probably shouldn't include the Txxx- part in the formatter unless we want to migrate again the identifiers in a couple weeks... For example, the thesaurus for representations below, already has quite a number of entries with GUIDs that do not match your proposed formatter. Beside that, any news about a possible future use of the thesauri ids in Joconde at POP? Only then would the mapping through properties be useful for checks/imports. Or do you have them already in internal tools? Cheers, --Nono314 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Multichill: and @Nono314: I agree that for all the reasons listed above, this property proposal is not relevant. --Christelle Molinié (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/identifiant_Localisation_-_Joconde_du_Service_des_musées_de_France&oldid=1488056607"