Property talk:P3973

Active discussions

Documentation

PIM authority ID
ID for an authority record (mostly persons) in the PIM (Petőfi Literary Museum, Hungary)
RepresentsPIM identifier (Q29043331)
Associated itemPetőfi Literary Museum (Q1234343)
Applicable "stated in" valuePIM authority (Q54878968)
Data typeExternal identifier
Template parameter|PIM=
Domainhuman (Q5)
Allowed valuesPIM\d+
ExampleSándor Petőfi (Q81219)PIM67655
Márton Brajkovićs (Q848930)PIM48837
Formatter URLhttps://resolver.pim.hu/auth/$1
Robot and gadget jobsBots will sync data in multiple phases with existing [and possibly to be created] WP entries
Tracking: usageCategory:Pages using Wikidata property P3973 (Q56244851)
Related to country  Hungary (Q28) (See 35 others)
See alsoPIM award ID (P8742)
Lists
Proposal discussionProposal discussion
Current uses
Total27,734
Main statement21,52677.6% of uses
Qualifier2<0.1% of uses
Reference6,20622.4% of uses
Search for values
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
 
Type “human (Q5): element must contain property “instance of (P31)” with classes “human (Q5)” or their subclasses (defined using subclass of (P279)). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Known exceptions: no label (Q61062576)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3973#type Q5, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
 
Format “PIM\d{5,7}: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3973#Format, hourly updated report, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
 
Distinct values: this property likely contains a value that is different from all other items. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3973#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value), SPARQL (new)
 
Single value: this property generally contains a single value. (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3973#Single value, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
 
Allowed entity types are Wikibase item (Q29934200): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3973#allowed entity types, SPARQL (new)
 
Scope is as main value (Q54828448), as reference (Q54828450): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist.
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Constraint violations/P3973#scope, SPARQL, SPARQL (new)
  Missing P106
(Help)
Violations query: SELECT ?item { ?item wdt:P3973 []. ?item wdt:P31 wd:Q5. FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item p:P106 [] } FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item p:P39 [] } FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item p:P97 [] } FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item p:P4638 [] } FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item p:P166 [] } FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item p:P18 [] } FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item p:P1442 [] } FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item p:P140[] } FILTER NOT EXISTS { ?item p:P569 [] } }
List of this constraint violations: Database reports/Complex constraint violations/P3973#Missing P106

Wrong constraintEdit

@ChristianKl, Máté: Not only human (Q5) can have this ID, award (Q618779) can too (e.g. see Kossuth Prize (Q637399)). We should fix this to avoid false errors. Bencemac (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the constraint is right. The PIM namespace is for persons. We can broaden its scope, but than it should not be called an error fix. If you click on the link on Kossuth Prize (Q637399), it brings you to not even the same domain as for persons. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:31, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I know that, I call it fix because currently we get a warning. As the description says, “ID for an authority record (mostly persons)” – and this time our item is not a person. Bencemac (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
I’s because it was not clear when grin proposed this property that the namespace doesn’t contain anything other than persons, and the description hasn’t been corrected after PIM confirmed that all items are persons. Other databases of PIM have never been in the scope of this property (yet). The constraint’s purpose is exactly to draw attention that the property is used incorrectly; yes, that use is currently incorrect. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 13:59, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Indeed. It took some time and a few mail exchanges but PIM assured me that the namespace [in question] should not contain anything but persons. They have other namespaces maintained but they are not really for the general public and they are independent of this property (and project, generally). --grin 22:40, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
@grin: Other namespaces (at least the awards one) can be useful for references: stated in (P248): PIM Awards; PIM authority ID (P3973): <id of the award>. So the question is whether we want to repurpose this property to be used for any namespace of PIM. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 10:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
@Tacsipacsi: I would not like to mix the Persons namespace with other content if I can. I would rather create an ancillary identifier for anything else. Turokaci should be asked about it but if I remember correctly they have separate databases internally as well. Nevertheless, Personal namespace have a very distinct purpose with quite a specific schema and usage, and I rather not mix it up with various different schemas and usage; also the very strict constraint helps to assure its proper content and make its usage simple, since we do know what it identifies. But that's my personal preference, not the universal Truth™. :-) --grin 08:32, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@grin: It’s OK for me to create a new property. I thought they are so similar that broadening this property should not cause any harm. But if it does, then let’s create a new property for other uses. However, I would like to hear other opinions before the next steps. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
@grin, Bencemac, ChristianKl, Máté: Okay, so the other opinion came from Palotabarát by creating a property proposal. Feel free to express your opinion there. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Return to "P3973" page.