Wikidata:Property proposal/Ordnance Survey linked data ID
Ordnance Survey linked data ID edit
Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control
Withdrawn
| Description | identifier for a place in the UK Ordnance Survey linked data service |
|---|---|
| Data type | External identifier |
| Domain | geographic locations in the UK |
| Allowed values | \d{16} |
| Allowed units | none |
| Example | Surrey (Q23276) → 7000000000013965 |
| Source | http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ |
| Formatter URL | http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/doc/$1 |
| See also | TOID (P3120) |
- Motivation
Useful datasource to co-reference against items here, the linked information pages are useful in themselves, and to compare against other data sources; plus the IDs would allow access for federated SPARQL queries Jheald (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Discussion
Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:48, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment there is a close relationship between this identifier and TOID (P3120) (an identifier which has the format "osgb" followed by a string of numbers). It seems that where locations with a TOID are included in the OS linked data service, their linked data identifier matches the numeric part of the TOID. However, not every location with a TOID is included in the linked data service -- for instance, our example case for a TOID, the Tower of London (Q62378) is not included.
- So I'm not sure what would the best way forward, eg
- (i) use TOID (P3120) for everything, respecifying the value to now not include the initial "osgb", in order to make it easy for the link formatter to link to the open linked data site. (P3120 only has six uses at the moment, so not much would be affected); or
- (ii) create this new property, specifically for items that are on the linked data service, and limit TOID (P3120) to things which are not; or
- (iii) create this new property, for items that are on the linked data service, and also insert corresponding values to TOID (P3120), despite the redundancy.
- If option (i) were selected, one could perhaps use a qualifier to indicate that the item was included in the OS linked data service. However, if a general link formatter just to P3120, it would mean there would be some links that worked and others that didn't.
- @Pigsonthewing, GZWDer, Srittau, Thryduulf: @Robevans123, ChristianKl: Thoughts? Jheald (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Proposal withdrawn. I have populated P3120 instead, as per option (i) above. Jheald (talk) 06:44, 27 March 2017 (UTC)