Wikidata:Property proposal/ECLI court code

ECLI court code edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Done: ECLI court code (P11887) (Talk and documentation)

Represents	court (Q41487)
Data type	String
Allowed values	[A-Z][A-Z0-9]{0,6}
Example 1	Helsinki Administrative Court -> HELHAO
Example 2	European Union Court of Justice -> C
Example 3	Stuttgart Regional Court -> LGSTUTT
Example 4	German Federal Constitutional Court -> BVerfG
Planned use	Add courts and ECLI court IDs as enumerated here: https://e-justice.europa.eu/175/EN/european_case_law_identifier_ecli
Robot and gadget jobs	Sadly, the EU does not require its system-using members to submit ECLI codes to a central database; each participating nation's coordinator maintains an unstructured description page. Bots are near impossible for this.
See also	European Case Law ID (P3570)
Single-value constraint	yes
Distinct-values constraint	yes

Motivation edit

I would like to add as many of the courts listed on https://e-justice.europa.eu/ as possible. Each participating nation (not all EU members participate) describes how their court IDs are formed. They provide ECLI court IDs along with their respective court names in many languages (which would become Wikidata item labels). Parsonsandrew1 (talk) 04:28, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Comment Generally, I am in favour of such a property but I would suggest including the jurisdiction's prefix in the value, i.e. BVerfG→ECLI:DE:BVerfG. What do you think about that? --Nw520 (talk) 12:03, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nw520 That is a great point. Actually, after I submitted the proposal, I realized that some of the court codes might indeed be duplicates among countries, since they are only unique within the scope or namespace of their respective country. Including the jurisdiction code would provide additional clarity. For example, Czechia uses NS as its supreme court's ECLI code (Nejvyšší soud), and its conceivable that Slovakia would use the same (albeit unclear from their E-Justice page as of now). Of course, those wouldn't actually be collisions, but nonetheless, a little bit ambiguous.

In no order, here are some other considerations:

• The ECLI: prefix is a redundant part of the value

• We would have to rename the property from "ECLI court code" to something akin to "ECLI prefix"

Alternatively, we could create a second property, "ECLI country code", whereby Q56025 would store both DE and BVerfG as separate values in separate properties. This would enable SPARQL queries like "select courts where ECLI country code equals DE".

• however, that would essentially duplicate the same information captured in P17 and P1001

• . . . except that the country code is indeed different from P17 and P1001; it very-nearly but not entirely follows ISO 3166 alpha-2, and non-states can also be assigned a code. Wikipedia entry: [1]

Frankly, I am indifferent in how it is implemented, so long as we capture this important information! Parsonsandrew1 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nw520 Is there a status update on this proposal? Are there other considerations I or we should think about? Parsonsandrew1 (talk) 01:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I think that storing the ECLI prefix would be simplest. But apart from that I don't have any other points I would want to nitpick about. --Nw520 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Parsonsandrew1 currently it seems like the argumetns are in favor of using more than just BVerfG but the examples in the post just use it. So that question is unresolved. There's currently no property description. It's unclear why the property uses string as datatype and not external id. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 17:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support --Nw520 (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Nepalicoi (talk) 04:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I suggest just calling it ECLI, making it an external identifier property, and expanding the scope so that it can even cover decisions. e.g. "ECLI:FR:CESSR:2013:355099.20130301" represents the "ECLI of Council of State decision No 355099 of 1 March 2013, delivered by the third and eighth subdivisions sitting together" [2]. --99of9 (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done @Parsonsandrew1, Nw520, Deansfa, ChristianKl, Nepalicoi, ZI Jony: there is still some things that need to be clarified but the basis is good so I created this property. Comments for 99of9: yes for external identifier datatype (obviously) but for the rest what you describe already exist as European Case Law ID (P3570) and I don't think it's a good idea to mix two different subset (court and court case) in the same property. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]