Wikidata:Property proposal/Aragonario ID (6th version)

Aragonario ID (6th version) edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

Done: Aragonario ID (6th version) (P12630) (Talk and documentation)

Description	identifier for an Aragonese or Spanish lexeme in the Aragonese-Spanish online dictionary (version since January 2023)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	Aragonese and Spanish lexemes
Allowed values	[1-9][0-9]{6}
Example 1	augua/اَوْغُاَ (L8226) → 1074499
Example 2	sangonera (L307650) → 1108110
Example 3	abanderato (L647971) → 1070015
Source	https://aragonario.aragon.es/
Planned use	add to existing Aragonese and Spanish lexemes
Number of IDs in source	between 75,137 (45,112 + 30,025) and 82,145 (1114581 - 1032437)
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL	https://aragonario.aragon.es/words/$1/
See also	Aragonario ID (5th version) (P11071)

Motivation edit

It appears that this month, a new version of the Aragonario was launched with several thousand more entries compared to the original version, leading to the invalidation of all IDs from the previous version. This proposal covers IDs from the new version, in line with there being separate properties for new and former schemes.

(Those former IDs are not all lost, however, as the proposal for the property covering the previous version has a link to a spreadsheet with a complete list of all of those IDs I compiled a few months ago--they should continue to be added for posterity. I have now begun compiling a list of the newer IDs, and it is hoped that reconciling information between the two versions—which I intend to do myself—will be made easier as a result.) Mahir256 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

@Aradgl, Uesca: and @Nikki, عُثمان, Bovlb: from the previous proposal. Mahir256 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid, as expected, the aragonario has changed its routes and the Aragonario ID no longer works.

It is not useful to use a web ID that can change. If someone wants to inquire about that lexeme, they can do so by searching for the lexeme itself in the Aragonario using the lexema or another source of information (paper dictionaries, for example).

I do not have any kind of control over the Aragonario, nor can we demand anything of him.

@Mahir256 Uesca (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uesca: There is still merit to retaining the old identifiers; many of them are still accessible through the Internet Archive, and its function of serving as an identifier has not really diminished (see, in addition to the 'former scheme' properties, ones like ISOCAT ID (P2263), Google+ ID (P2847), and other properties for discontinued websites). As for the issue of changes in IDs, these too can be reflected in the data; if their ability to change made them not useful, then properties for social media accounts--whose IDs can frequently be changed by their users--would also not be useful. Mahir256 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do they have any policy about identifiers? Do we have any contacts on their team that can advise us? I'd love to be able to map this stuff, but it's not very satisfactory to support a property for an identifier that can be invalidated on a whim. Bovlb (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb: I sent an email to the address posted on the 'Contacto' page of that site asking about the stability of their identifiers. Mahir256 (talk) 20:13, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uesca, Bovlb: After resending the message once, I eventually got a reply. Mahir256 (talk) 17:33, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Thanks for following up.

When they say "right now we are creating permanent and stable links", does that mean that the links they currently create are permanent and stable, or does it mean that they're currently designing yet another version of identifiers, this time to be permanent and stable? Bovlb (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb: This is what they had to say about that. Mahir256 (talk) 14:10, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256 Hmm. From that response, it doesn't sound like we should proceed with this property at this time. Bovlb (talk) 15:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovlb: I would agree, but it appears @Uesca: has begun adding these new IDs (accidentally?) using the existing property intended for the old IDs (e.g. fuyita (L1016834) has an ID which would not have worked prior to January 2023); if they are to be shifted, it would need to be to this proposed new property (lest they be removed completely or shifted to described at URL (P973)). Mahir256 (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Uesca, Bovlb, Mahir256: what's your current opinion for the proposed property? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 13:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they've now decided to have stable identifiers, then I have no objection. Bovlb (talk) 16:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mahir256: shall we ahead? Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 07:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZI Jony: I can certainly work on filling in the values for both the old and new IDs once the property for the new version is created. (I should email the DGPL team again about it.) Mahir256 (talk) 19:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per above, at the very least these can be archived. --عُثمان (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahir256, Uesca, Bovlb, عُثمان: Done as Aragonario ID (6th version) (P12630). Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 12:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]