Property talk:P6659
Documentation
identifier for nature and landscape protected areas in Baden-Württemberg (Germany), issued by the Landesanstalt für Umwelt Baden-Württemberg
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6659#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6659#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P6659#Entity types
different from LUBW Protected Area No (P5965) ? edit
@Derzno, GPSLeo, Blech, PKM, Ordercrazy, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2: IMHo it makes sense to explicitly point out that this identifier is not a duplicate of LUBW Protected Area No (P5965), though it might seem so at first glance to people not familiar with the topic. I tried to add different from (P1889) to this property, but it seems this cannot be applied here. Is there a more suitable way to do that? --Dealerofsalvation (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
I used the LUBW selector [1] to take a closer look at the "Steckbriefe" (Data sheets) from LUBW for Wikidata items having a Baden-Württemberg protected area ID (P6659) and for those having a LUBW Protected Area No (P5965). Samples:
- Aimersbachtal (Q62068250) --> https://rips-dienste.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/rips/ripsservices/apps/naturschutz/schutzgebiete/steckbrief.aspx?id=1369003000047
- Beiberg-Buchberg (Q62026764) --> https://rips-dienste.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/rips/ripsservices/apps/naturschutz/schutzgebiete/steckbrief.aspx?id=929001000003
- Q57992405 --> https://rips-dienste.lubw.baden-wuerttemberg.de/rips/ripsservices/apps/naturschutz/schutzgebiete/steckbrief.aspx?id=1369002000326
In either case, they call the identifier "Schutzgebiets-Nr.", it's just that they use different formats for
- Landschaftsschutzgebiet (Q21503788) and Naturschutzgebiet (Q759421) - sample: "1.36.054" - which match the regexp in this property
- natural monument in Germany (Q21573182) - sample: "81360190024" - which matches the regexp in the other property
So these IDs can be regarded as disjoint. From all of this, I conclude these properties are the same and I suggest merging these two properties into one (extending the regexp to allow both number formats). Thoughts? --Dealerofsalvation (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)