Property talk:P7711
Documentation
identifier for a person in the Service des Musées de France Joconde authority file
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P7711#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P7711#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
T513-[1-9]\d{0,4}|[0-9a-f]{8}(-[0-9a-f]{4}){3}-[0-9a-f]{12}
”: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P7711#Format, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P7711#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P7711#Scope, SPARQL
|
Format
[edit]@Christelle Molinié, VIGNERON, Nomen ad hoc: Looking at the entries listed by the SPARQL endpoint, it seems this so-called "identifier" and its current formatter URL were only used to generate URIs for the initial batch of entries in August 2018 (from then-existing values of the AUTR field in Joconde I guess). However, items created after that date (and supposedly future ones) use an UUID instead which does not fit with this scheme at all. Should we revise the proposed format to cope with them before more items are added? The same comment of course applies to other thesauri published on the site, though some are probably less dynamic. Is there a contact on GINCO that could provide some insight? --Nono314 (talk) 12:49, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Hi @Nono314:, thank you for raising this issue and looking for an explanation. I 've had a phone call this morning with one of the administrator of Joconde vocabularies. She asked the GINCO platform manager who confirmed that there are some ID made up of the system number of the former database and others, the latest, made up with opaque identifiers (GUID). I have just seen that @Vladimir Alexiev: has received a reply here Property talk:P7844 about the same subject on an other list (there are 10 Joconde properties potentially concerned). We will probably have to manage with two formats. Is it possible to allow two types of values ? --Christelle Molinié (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- We can keep expanding the regexes of these thesauri but if new entries will be generated using GUIDs instead of "natural keys", the only feasible course is to merge all 10 culture.fr thesauri on WD into one (note: culture.fr have a total of 20 thesauri), since it makes little sense to have the same formatterUrl for several external-ids. The disadvantage is that we can't check for item type, and (as mentioned at Property talk:P7844) some matches will be non-unique (because the same item could me mapped to several culture.fr thesauri). @Nono314, Christelle Molinié, VIGNERON, Nomen ad hoc, Crowjane7: what do you think? --Vladimir Alexiev (talk)
- It's a pity that Ginco doesn't have a "URL policy" feature to generate sequential IDs ("natural keys"). Resorting to GUIDs is impolite to humans (we have our rights too! ;-). --Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 13:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
- Maybe you need this: Wikidata:Project_chat#UUID_search. --- Jura 13:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Property deletion
[edit]Property was kept, please see Wikidata:Properties for deletion/Joconde — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
- France-related properties
- All Properties
- Properties with external-id-datatype
- Properties used on 1000+ items
- Properties with single value constraints
- Properties with unique value constraints
- Properties with format constraints
- Properties with entity type constraints
- Properties with scope constraints
- Art person properties