Wikidata:Property proposal/Microsoft Academic Source ID

Microsoft Academic Source ID edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Not done

Description	identifier for a academic journal, book series or conference proceedings in Microsoft Academic
Represents	Microsoft Academic (Q28136779)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	publication (Q732577)
Allowed values	\d{8,10}
Example 1	Nature (Q180445) → 137773608
Example 2	PLOS One (Q564954) → 202381698
Example 3	Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Q924044) → 106296714
Example 4	International Conference on Communications (Q6049597) → 1130451194
Source	https://academic.microsoft.com/
Number of IDs in source	48,647 Journals, 4,336 Conferences
Expected completeness	eventually complete (Q21873974)
Formatter URL	https://academic.microsoft.com/#/detail/$1
See also	proposals for Microsoft Academic Source ID Microsoft Academic Work ID Microsoft Academic Author ID Microsoft Academic Institution ID → Google Knowledge Graph ID (P2671) → VIAF ID (P214)

Motivation edit

Connect Wikidata to the Microsoft Academic Knowledge Graph. Like the proposals above for Dimensions properties, this will help to disambiguate authors and identify related items. Microsoft Academic (Q28136779) is free and offers API access to the graph. Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 06:10, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support David (talk) 07:14, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose identifier scheme seems to be the same for all four proposals. Just make one for all four. --- Jura 08:24, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support having distinct identifiers is good practice and will help enforce more meaningful constraints, keep track of coverage for each type, add third-party resolvers which might only work for a given type. − Pintoch (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I suppose you mean properties, not identifiers. No it's not good practice to split an identifier among different properties merely because one doesn't want to use complex constraints. --- Jura 09:03, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment looks like the website is having issues - all the examples lead to error pages for me (for a few days at least) − Pintoch (talk) 22:25, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question is this what they call "venues" (=journals, conference series) or also "events" (conference instances)? From the frequencies, "venues" seems likely. What happens with events? --- Jura 11:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it is proposed as an identifier for journals and conferences series. Conference instances would be handled like journal volumes i.e. the volume (or instance) number and date of occurrence would be stored in the metadata of each paper published in the conference series. How would this be modelled if we have only a single identifier? Can you provide an example of the constraints that could be applied please? Simon Cobb (User:Sic19 ; talk page) 21:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - In their logic, each conference has an identifier. This way the item for the conference can hold the identifier. A single property has the advantage that single-value constraint and distinct-value constraints can be applied reliably. Similarly, if we split VIAF into several Wikidata properties, we couldn't be sure that the same identifier isn't used in several properties. --- Jura 08:20, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:37, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Jura1: I prefer a single property--Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not done, use Microsoft Academic ID (P6366) − Pintoch (talk) 14:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]