Wikidata:Property proposal/Canmore thesaurus ID

Canmore monument-type IDEdit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

DescriptionIdentifier for a heritage site-type in the Canmore thesaurus
RepresentsCanmore monument type thesaurus (Q81634779);
Data typeExternal identifier
Domainsubclasses of architectural structure (Q811979)
Allowed values\d+
Example 1tower house (Q91312)344
Example 2broch (Q82137)409
Example 3church building (Q16970)1744
Example 4standing stone (Q2330559)1769
Sourcehttps://canmore.org.uk/thesaurus ; also https://heritagedata.org/live/schemes/1.html
Planned useMatching thesaurus 1 ("monument type") to assist in improving instance of (P31) values for the 60,000+ items for which we have Canmore ID (P718) statements
Formatter URLhttps://canmore.org.uk/thesaurus/1/$1/_
See alsoCanmore ID (P718), Canmore object-type ID, Canmore maritime-type ID
third-party formatter URL (P3303) = https://heritagedata.org/live/schemes/1/concepts/$1.html
third-party formatter URL (P3303) = https://purl.org/heritagedata/schemes/1/concepts/$1.html

Technical noteEdit

Canonical linked-data URLs for the Canmore thesauruses have now been created as part of https://heritagedata.org/ (which is also the easiest place to harvest the dataset from), eg:

But I have preferred to link to the Canmore database itself, and accordingly proposed the form above for the ID-string, because this makes available the "see sites of this type" button on the Canmore site, taking the user directly to corresponding hits in the Canmore database; and also because from the Canmore URL it is possible to work out the heritagedata URL, but not the reverse.

I will contact Canmore to ask them to put in URL redirecting from eg https://canmore.org.uk/thesaurus/1/344 to https://canmore.org.uk/thesaurus/1/344/TOWER%20HOUSE so that then we could just use the numerical ID 344, with formatter URI for RDF resource (P1921) to generate the linked-data URL (and new properties for the archaeological object and maritime vessel typologies). But as I've no idea how much time it might take for them to implement that (or even whether they would consider it at all), for the time being it seems best to go with the property as proposed above, so as to be able to get on and make a start with what is actually possible at the moment.

MotivationEdit

Canmore (Q5032525) is the online database for the archive of the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Scotland (Q961004), now part of Historic Environment Scotland (Q21997561). It is the single most detailed database of heritage and archaeological sites in Scotland. We currently have about 60,000 location items linked to Canmore site pages by P718, and further matching is actively ongoing.

The Canmore thesauruses (#1 for monument types, #2 for archaeological object types, and #3 for maritime vessel types) are controlled vocabularies used to describe sites and finds in the Canmore database. Having an identifier for these will assist matching processes using OpenRefine and Mix'n'Match; will allow Canmore ID (P718) statements on items to be qualified with their Canmore database type-code; and will help us to confirm and strengthen our typology in the three areas covered (including comparison of hierarchical structures, comparing with our own subclass of (P279) trees with Canmore's hierarchy, represented eg on wikidata using broader concept (P4900) qualifiers). It will also create the stepping stones needed to allow users to cross-walk from other vocabularies to the Canmore thesaurus. Jheald (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

  • Proposed. Jheald (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Adding thesaurus id's is good. ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support Looks great. Am I right in assuming from the discussion above that the plan is to switch this to the "simpler" values as soon as those are available? Just checking for clarity. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Andrew Gray: Exactly. But I'd like to get some matching in place before contacting HES, to make more concrete what I'd be asking for and why. Then, when/if they allow simpler URLs, I'd hope to switch to the simpler scheme. Jheald (talk) 23:56, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Support. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
  •   Comment @Jheald, Andrew Gray: they already secretly accept the numeral identifiers. Here's an example: https://canmore.org.uk/thesaurus/1/344/_ . We have a number of other URL formatters that replace unused text with an underscore or similar character like this. --99of9 (talk) 05:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @99of9: Thanks!! I have re-written the proposal accordingly to make it just a numeric ID, just for Canmore thesaurus #1. @ArthurPSmith, Andrew Gray, YULdigitalpreservation: Hope you are all okay with this. I've moved the proposal back from "ready" to "under discussion" to let you have a say, but it would be great to be able to move forward. I have introduced new parallel proposals for the object-type and maritime-type IDs, for your additional consideration. Jheald (talk) 09:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

@YULdigitalpreservation, ArthurPSmith, Andrew Gray, 99of9, Jheald:   Done: Canmore monument-type ID (P7922). − Pintoch (talk) 10:16, 14 February 2020 (UTC)