Wikidata:Property proposal/CDDA designationTypeCode

CDDA designationTypeCode

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

   Done: CDDA designationTypeCode (P9800) (Talk and documentation)

Description	code for the national designation type used in the Common Database on Designated Areas inventory
Data type	External identifier
Domain	subclasses of protected area (Q473972) in Europe
Allowed values	([A-Z]){2}([0-9]){2}
Example 1	Special Nature Reserve (Q107691544) → ES01
Example 2	Integral Reserve (Q107990772) → ES02
Example 3	Marine Protected Area (Q107990774) → ES03
Source	Nationally designated areas inventory (Q1116062), database downloadable at [1]
Planned use	populate elements using Common Database on Designated Areas ID (P4762)
Number of IDs in source	724
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	http://dd.eionet.europa.eu/vocabulary/cdda/designationTypeCodeValue/$1
Robot and gadget jobs	probably not.
See also	Common Database on Designated Areas ID (P4762) and Wikidata:Property proposal/CDDA designationType
Applicable "stated in"-value	Nationally designated areas inventory (Q1116062)
Distinct-values constraint	yes

Motivation

The Nationally designated areas inventory (Q1116062) includes lots of details of official protected areas in the European Environment Information and Observation Network (Q1378198). Here we focus in the named designationTypeCode attribute.

It is hard to build an international ontology for designation types of protected areas. The IUCN management category (Q3679744) is so minimalist to cover the real regulation practices. The EIONET compiles national designations and assigns each one a unique ID they call designationTypeCode. This ID relates the type of designation with the related public office and law references. Each entry at the Nationally designated areas inventory (Q1116062), more than 60K and growing, includes a mandatory designationTypeCode attribute.

This proposal complements with Wikidata:Property proposal/CDDA designationType —Ismael Olea (talk) 23:03, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

Strakhov Tiberioclaudio99 Discasto Enladrillado Ivanhercaz Millars Rodelar Abián Tomukas Vanbasten_23 Maria zaos Olea Dandilero Davileci

Notified participants of WikiProject Spain. —Ismael Olea (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Support, but why expected completeness (P2429)always incomplete (Q21873886)? If there are only 570 IDs in the source, that sounds like it should be possible to cover completely. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 23:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

  Thanks for the vote :)

  About using always incomplete (Q21873886): the database is not inmutable and could be extended (and modified, I guess) in the future. And yes, today I keep an OpenRefine project ready to upload the current database state. —Ismael Olea (talk) 07:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment @Olea: This seems fine, however I think it may be confusing with this label for Wikidata users. Maybe the label should indicate this is the identifier for the type, with usage instructions that it is only to be applied to items specifically for those types? Otherwise people may try to apply this designation to designated areas themselves which have been assigned that code. We have similar issues with library classifications - see Wikidata:Property proposal/Library classifications' IDs for topics for a discussion about that. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  @ArthurPSmith Maybe I'm explaining something wrong. The proposed label is the name used by the source to reuse terminology and reduce noise. About the second part, this property is analog to IUCN protected areas category (P814) (you can see a use example at Dry Island Buffalo Jump Provincial Park (Q3364718). Of course I'm open to suggestions to be more descriptive. —Ismael Olea (talk) 19:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  Ok. Now I see the examples are not the most appropriate. But the analogy with IUCN protected areas category (P814) is still valid. —Ismael Olea (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Olea: IUCN protected areas category (P814) is an item-valued property, not an external id property. How many different values for this property would be valid, and should they be created as items (or perhaps they already have)? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  @ArthurPSmith You are right, so the proposal examples are still valid. For this proposal, the last database download includes 724 entries, each one for a different national designation.

  I think I'll need another new property to analog the IUCN one. —Ismael Olea (talk) 20:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  Great - I modified your domain statement here also: this property applies to subclasses, while the other would be for instances of protected area. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

•  Support JavierMunozF (talk) 21:15, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Comment I completely rewrote the motivation text. Hope now is clearer. —Ismael Olea (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 18:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Ahoerstemeier (talk) 21:17, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
•  Support Thadguidry (talk) 02:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
• @Lucas Werkmeister, Olea, JavierMunozF, Ahoerstemeier, Thadguidry:  Done --Tinker Bell ★ ♥ 07:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)