Wikidata:Property proposal/type of register

type of a register in Germany edit

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Done: type of a register in Germany (P10604) (Talk and documentation)

Description	type of a register in Germany represented by code
Represents	type of register (Q110609500)
Data type	Item
Domain	various items represented in various German registers
Allowed values	items with instance of type of register (Q110609500)
Example 1	BASF (Q9401) → Section B of the Commercial Register (Q110609503)
Example 2	National Research Data Infrastructure (Q61658497) → register of associations (Q110619518)
Example 3	Air Berlin (Q156829) → Section A of the Commercial Register (Q110609501)
Example 4	ISC Mannheim (Q1654576) → register of associations (Q110619518)
Source	https://www.xrepository.de/details/urn:xoev-de:xjustiz:codeliste:gds.registerzeichen
Planned use	First, adding them as qualifiers to German companies
Number of IDs in source	274
Distinct-values constraint	yes
Wikidata project	Wikidata:WikiProject_Authority_control

Motivation edit

Germany has many registers. Every register has its own register type which is standardized at https://www.xrepository.de/details/urn:xoev-de:xjustiz:codeliste:gds.registerzeichen. To avoid creating many properties for various German registers and for items they represent, we could create just two properties "type of register in Germany" and "identifier in a German register". Then we could add IDs of German companies from German trade register (Handelsregister) using the property "identifier in a German register" with qualifiers "type of register in Germany" and "XJustiz registration court ID".

Notified participants of WikiProject Authority control RShigapov (talk) 10:45, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The second relevant property is also proposed at Wikidata:Property_proposal/identifier_in_a_register. RShigapov (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion edit

Support I'm not sure about the general plan here, but this particular usage makes sense, showing where an organization is registered. Presumably this would work for other countries too if they have a similar national registration system for organizations? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So far I've created only five types of registers (HRA, HRB, VR, PR and GnR), corresponding to registers of organizations, but there are another 269 registers (including Barge Register and Insolvency proceedings register) at https://www.xrepository.de/api/xrepository/urn:xoev-de:xjustiz:codeliste:gds.registerzeichen_3.1/download/GDS.Registerzeichen_3.1.md. So potentially this property has wider domain of applicability than in the provided examples. Though, I don't know how many of those registers are publicly open.

WRT registers in other countries: yes! RShigapov (talk) 08:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd rather continue as outlined at Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Companies/Archive_2#Missing_identifier_properties, i.e. propose to create specific identifier properties or use one of the existing catalog code (P528) or described at URL (P973). --- Jura 09:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I discussed that also at the end of Wikidata_talk:WikiProject_Companies/Archive_2#Importing_data_from_OpenCorporates. My arguments for "type of register" and "identifier in a register" are:

1. Wikidata separates register (Q19386377) and catalogue (Q2352616), so it would make sense to create separate properties for those items as well.

2. In case of German registration system we need three values: register, type of register and identifier in a register. The same register can issue identifiers for multiple types of registers. An example is Handelsregister, i.e., German trade register. The proposed properties "type of register" and "identifier in a register" should help to cover these cases. RShigapov (talk) 10:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, we discussed it already.

There are no properties attempting to differentiate "catalogue" from "register", but the pair catalog code (P528) and catalog (P972) has labels and aliases encompassing both.

If you are interested in referencing German registries, you may want to propose corresponding properties, i.e. one per identifier.

The current samples and their incomplete presentation don't really allow to determine an optimal solution. The current samples for "type of register" seem more suitable for values of legal form (P1454) than for items about companies.
Maybe more complete samples (with all qualifiers), possibly with identical identifier values from distinct registers would allow to determine an optimal solution. --- Jura 11:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, let me show you examples "with identical identifier values from distinct registers". We can look at OpenCorporates for German companies with "identifier in a register" equal to, let say, 47394: https://opencorporates.com/companies/de?q=47394. It returns 12 companies. I consider three of them.

1. Maas Beteiligungsgesellschaft mbH is registered at Amtsgericht Hamburg with the "type of a register" HRB and "identifier in a register" 47394.

2. MIA.Ticket & Merch OHG is registered at Amtsgericht Berlin (Charlottenburg) with HRA and 47394.

3. Fanfarenzug Tilleda e.V. is registered at Amtsgericht Stendal with VR and 47394.
I thought to model that using the property "identifier in a register" with qualifiers "type of a register" and "XJustiz registration court ID". The latter would be used to specify the registration courts, but alternatively another property "registration court" can be proposed. RShigapov (talk) 11:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. It seems a valid way to model it. Maybe the labels of the properties should make it clear that they are for this type of registry in Germany. --- Jura 12:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I thought about that as well and decided to add "in Germany" to the descriptions of "identifier in a register" and "type of a register" and to keep very simple labels. But may be the labels should be "identifier in a register in Germany" and "type of a register in Germany", indeed. From the other side, we can't exclude existence of similar registration systems in other countries as mentioned in the comment by User:ArthurPSmith. RShigapov (talk) 12:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Property labels should be unique. In its present form, it duplicates the generic properties mentioned above (P528/P972). I think the labels should either be made topic and country specific or one should use the existing properties. --- Jura 12:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed the labels for both properties. They are now "identifier in a register in Germany" and "type of a register in Germany". I am going to propose yet another property "register in Germany", so that later I could model the German companies using the three properties. RShigapov (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ich habe noch etwas Schwierigkeit das Zusammenspiel von type of register und register in Germany zu verstehen. Fungiert eine der Eigenschaften als Qualifizierer oder sind beide Eigenschaften direkt am Subjekt anzubringen?
Eine Frage, die sich mir noch stellt ist, welche abstrakte Beziehung jeweils besteht zwischen: Section A of the Commercial Register (Q110609501)→Section A of the Commercial Register (Q104806716), Section B of the Commercial Register (Q110609503)→Section B of the Commercial Register (Q104806723), register of associations (Q110619518)→register of associations (Q2515188), ??? (fand das Datenobjekt nicht)→partnership register (Q1718964) register of cooperatives (Q110609504)→register of cooperatives (Q1502498). Ist ersteres jeweils die Präfix zu zweiterem? Könnte das Präfix-Datenobjekt aufgrund der 1-zu-1-Beziehung zur korrespondierenden Registerart ggf. entfallen? Sicherlich ist die derzeitige Modellierung der zweiteren Werte inkorrekt, da es sich tatsächlich nicht um Katalog handelt, sondern wenn dann um Unterklassen von Katalogen, oder noch besser Registerarten. Das könnte man dann abändern.
Hinweis: In der Vergangenheit hatte ich zudem ebenfalls mal versucht, Registereinträge zu modellieren. Dabei hatten die Aussagen untenstehende Form (Auch hier das Problem, dass es eigentlich Unterklassen von Katalogen vorliegen und nicht Instanzen von Katalogen). Sollte diese Eigenschaft angenommen werden, wäre es sinnvoll die Aussagen zu migrieren bzw. zu löschen (Verwendungen findet man über die Linkliste der Register im Qualifizierer):

catalog code

⟨Nummer⟩

edit

catalog	Section A of the Commercial Register oder Section B of the Commercial Register
	register of associations oder partnership register
	register of cooperatives

issued by

⟨Registergericht⟩

0 references

add reference

add value

(EN: I have some difficulty understanding the interplay of type of register and register in Germany. Does one of the properties function as a qualifier or are both properties to be added directly to the subject?
One question I still have is what is the abstract relationship in each case between: Section A of the Commercial Register (Q110609501)→Section A of the Commercial Register (Q104806716), Section B of the Commercial Register (Q110609503)→Section B of the Commercial Register (Q104806723), register of associations (Q110619518)→register of associations (Q2515188), ??? (failed to find the item)→partnership register (Q1718964), register of cooperatives (Q110609504)→register of cooperatives (Q1502498). Is the former the prefix to the latter in each case? Could the prefix item be omitted, due to the 1-to-1 relationship to the corresponding register type? The current modeling of the latter values is incorrect, since they are in fact not catalogs, but rather subclasses of catalogs, or even better, register types but this could be modified.
Note: In the past I had also tried to model register entries. The statements had the model above (again, the problem with it being that the registers are actually subclasses of catalogs and not instances). If this property is accepted, it would make sense to migrate or delete the statements (uses can be found via the link list of the registers in the qualifier).) --Nw520 (talk) 17:07, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing a few important issues here!

1) My initial proposal was to model companies (and other entities in German registers) via the direct property "identifier in a register in Germany" with the qualifiers "type of register in Germany" and "register in Germany". I imagine also extra qualifiers like "start date" and "end date". I would avoid adding "type of register in Germany" and "register in Germany" as direct properties to companies, because multiple registrations per legal entities are not something uncommon in Germany.

2) Regarding the abstract relation between Section A of the Commercial Register (Q110609501) and Section A of the Commercial Register (Q104806716). I was not aware about the fact that the latter exists. Indeed, in the current form the former seems to be the prefix for the latter. And yes, we could use the latter directly during modelling omitting the former.

3) Shouldn't we call the property "register in Germany" as "registration authority in Germany" (Registrierungsbehörde)? The same registration authority can host multiple registers or types of registers (e.g., HRA, HRB, VR, GnR and PR), right? Shouldn't we call the property "type of register" as "register in Germany"? Then, we could model a company with the direct property "identifier in a register in Germany" with the qualifiers "register in Germany" (e.g., HRA, HRB, VR, GnR and PR) and "registration authority in Germany" (one of 151 Amtsgerichte). I am starting to think it would make more sense.

RShigapov (talk) 09:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I know it's more work in the beginning, but I would propose to create own properties for each register for three reasons: 1. Less mistakes: The easier it is to select a property the better. We will see a lot of entries with incomplete data like only the number. 2. Linking: Germanys registeres are known to have no or bad open data sets. But with some luck in the future we could at least create search links on lublic sites like the Gemeinsames Registerportal der Länder. 3. Consistence: A lot of international registeres already have singular properties like the Austrian ZVR-Number (P6279). Best --Newt713 (talk)
Thank you for your contribution! There is a big difference between Austrian and German commercial registers. The latter is not unique, there are 120+ registrations courts. The identifiers of German companies in those registers are not unique. Moreover, there are multiple variants of writing the same identifier. I mean the combined identifier including the court, code and identifier. Unfortunately, we can't simply create one property at Wikidata for the German commercial register. RShigapov (talk) 09:07, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RShigapov, ArthurPSmith, Jura1, Nw520, Newt713: Done: type of a register in Germany (P10604) —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RShigapov, ArthurPSmith, Jura1, Nw520, Newt713: I'm sorry I'm late at the party but two new related props are being discussed now https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#identifier_in_a_register_in_Germany and I see some problems here:

Why is this limited to Germany? A similar thing happens in other countries, see these RAL ID examples: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P9487#Code_for_register_or_organization?
If this is to be used as a qualifier on an identifier, isn't it better to call it "type of identifier"?
Since RShigapov has created all DE registration courts, the second qualifier should be "registration authority" or "issued by", rather than "XJustiz registration court ID". "XJustiz registration court ID" should be used as a main statement on a DE court, not as a qualifier on an identifier issued by that court. --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 14:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]