Wikidata:Property proposal/Flemish organization for Immovable Heritage value types ID
Flemish organization for Immovable Heritage value types ID edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control
| Description | identifier for a value type in the thesaurus of the Flemish organization for Immovable Heritage |
|---|---|
| Represents | Flanders Heritage Agency (Q3262326) |
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | types of values attached to heritage (e.g. artistic value) - not expressed in Wikidata items yet |
| Allowed values | [1-9]\d* |
| Example | none yet |
| External links | Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt]. |
| Planned use | add to Mix'n'match |
| Formatter URL | https://id.erfgoed.net/thesauri/waardetypes/$1 |
| Robot and gadget jobs | Mix'n'match |
| See also | Flemish Heritage Object ID (P1764), FOIH person ID (P4206) |
- Motivation
The Flanders Heritage Agency (Q3262326) recently released its 8 thesauri as carefully curated and clean Linked Open Data. In my opinion they contain very good terminology that is interesting and relevant for built heritage, worldwide. I'm submitting property proposals for each of the 8 thesauri individually because they have different formatter URLs and this will allow us to query each set of terms individually. I have downloaded them as RDF files already and plan to add them to Mix'n'match as soon as these properties are created. Spinster 💬 18:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
Comment @Spinster: since these are intended for linked open data use, wouldn't it be best to just use exact match (P2888) for this? How many items would likely use these properties? ArthurPSmith (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
- Good question. The terms are heavily cross-referenced with the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, for which we do have a property too. An advantage of a property, for me as a regular data user/editor, is easier querying, so that does have my preference; as far as I know, this does not hinder the use of exact match (P2888) to comply with what LOD specialists need? And a lot of terms in the thesauri are very regular terminology related to built heritage, so I think we're talking at least about hundreds of items. Spinster 💬 07:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- I voted in support of a few of these properties. Now that I see this discussion, I'll pause until we have a chance to discuss these alternatives. I'm interested in hearing about pros/cons of these strategies. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 12:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
- Good question. The terms are heavily cross-referenced with the Art and Architecture Thesaurus, for which we do have a property too. An advantage of a property, for me as a regular data user/editor, is easier querying, so that does have my preference; as far as I know, this does not hinder the use of exact match (P2888) to comply with what LOD specialists need? And a lot of terms in the thesauri are very regular terminology related to built heritage, so I think we're talking at least about hundreds of items. Spinster 💬 07:04, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
- As long as the domain cannot be expressed in Wikidata items yet, and we don't have examples, I'd suggest to postpone this particular property. Jneubert (talk) 12:13, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
- I found the proposed example artistic merit (Q4801282). The domain is subclasses of the newly created value (Q41762787), which I will now try to fill out. --99of9 (talk) 02:55, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Support ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)- Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Done @Spinster, ArthurPSmith, YULdigitalpreservation, Jneubert, ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2, Pigsonthewing: Enjoy! --99of9 (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2017 (UTC)