for all P396 main values (https://w.wiki/4nZe), change the values removing the initial "IT\ICCU\" and the remaining internal "\" (e.g. "IT\ICCU\RAVV\020128" > "RAVV020128") - e.g.
for all P5485 values (https://w.wiki/4nZh), change the values removing the initial "IT\ICCU\" and the remaining internal "\" (e.g. "IT\ICCU\FOG\E009899" > "FOGE009899") - e.g.
for all P396 in references (https://w.wiki/4ni9), change the values removing the initial "IT\ICCU\" and the remaining internal "\" (e.g. "IT\ICCU\CFIV\015257" > "CFIV015257") and simultaneously remove from these references all the subject named as (P1810) listed in the fourth column (basically, all the values of P1810 not containing a "," are imprecise and should have never been added; this is the occasion to remove them) - e.g.
for all P5485 in references (https://w.wiki/4nZy), change the values removing the initial "IT\ICCU\" and the remaining internal "\" (e.g. "IT\ICCU\UBO\0101688" > "UBO0101688") - e.g.
I summarized the general motivations for and against reformatting in a table which I posted at 20:03 of February 6th; furthermore, three motivations are specific for this case (I copy them):
a relevant part of Italian library systems has only been using the short (“new”) format instead of the long (“present”) format
reformatting is supported by ICCU (which manages the IDs) itself
As I said, "Since a decision has to be taken (possibly before the dismissal of the old OPAC, which according to ICCU will happen during February causing link rot) and no decision on this matter could be unanimous, as the discussion shows, IMHO there is a sufficient, although not unanimous, consensus for the solution of reformatting; and, anyway, the other possible solution (new properties) has a narrower support". @Ladsgroup: considered the consensus sufficient and today started reformatting with Dexbot; however, Jura1 suggested continuing the discussion for another week and making an apposite request for permission for the bot. So the discussion can go on here. --Epìdosis 15:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
2. if P396 is repurposed, if and how should we normalize references with an access date in the past.
3. is the bot correctly doing the proposed task?
The open question for this discussion seems to be mainly (2.) --- Jura 16:32, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the questions. For 1), I think I have answered above. For 2), since the two forms of the IDs (longer and shorter) have always coexisted, as the fact VIAF has always used both of them demonstrates, I see no problem in simply changing the format of the ID; the removal of all subject named as (P1810) not containing "," has the following reason: all these references where added by Reinheitsgebot using labels contained in MnM catalog (https://mix-n-match.toolforge.org/#/catalog/58, existing until last August), which wasn't correct because these labels had been normalised for a better use in MnM (using the form "Name Surname" and removing qualifications) but had never been present in that precise form in SBN entries (which always use the inverse form, so "Surname, Name" or "Surname, Name <qualification>"). For 3), the edits done as of now are correct. --Epìdosis 16:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bot edits main values, references and qualifiers. Except case with move_to parameter. But this parameter is not needed in discussed case. — Ivan A. Krestinin (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, perfect. So in fact we need this bot request only for point 3 (including the removal of wrong P1810), while points 1, 2, 4 can be entirely done by Autofix. Let's start this Sunday, if no objection arises. --Epìdosis 22:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.