Wikidata:Property proposal/VcBA ID

VcBA ID

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

Done: Vatican Library VcBA ID (P8034) (Talk and documentation)

Description	authority control for a subject on the website opac.vatlib.it
Represents	opac.vatlib.it (Q84353965)
Data type	External identifier
Allowed values	\d{3}\/[1-9]\d{0,5}
Example 1	Basilica of San Domenico (Q862602) → 494/9793
Example 2	Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (Q2294543) → 492/3309
Example 3	Domenico da San Gimignano (Q55227153) → 495/12554
Example 4	Arca di San Domenico (Q2417706) → 499/13578
Example 5	Justo de Santa María de Oro (Q6318514) → 495/235545
External links	Use in sister projects: [ar] • [de] • [en] • [es] • [fr] • [he] • [it] • [ja] • [ko] • [nl] • [pl] • [pt] • [ru] • [sv] • [vi] • [zh] • [commons] • [species] • [wd] • [en.wikt] • [fr.wikt].
Planned use	Slow manual addition; semi-automatic imports to be valued
Number of IDs in source	Hundreds of thousands
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-externalid-url/?p=XXXX&url_prefix=https://opac.vatlib.it/auth/detail/&id=$1
See also	Vatican Library ID (former scheme) (P1017)

Motivation

Notified participants of WikiProject Authority control

Notified participants of WikiProject Italy As you can notice, Vatican Library ID (former scheme) (P1017) has not his own formatter URL; instead, it has only a formatter URL in VIAF. I've contacted Paola Manoni, director of the Coordinamento dei Servizi Informatici, to ask her about this strange absence of a formatter URL. She said that BAV identifiers used by VIAF are obsolete and that the authority control which Vatican Library (Q213678) uses at the moment is opac.vatlib.it; VIAF will be synchronised with these data in the next months. So I propose this new property, which is necessary as VIAF component (Q26921380) and in order to substitute old Vatican Library ID (former scheme) (P1017), which will be mantained for historical purposes.

Final note: the IDs should theoretically have "/" instead of "_", but use "_" in the URL, so, if possible, it would be good to have "/" in the ID and "_" somewhere in the formatter URL; I made a test here, but it wasn't successful, if someone has better ideas is welcome! Epìdosis 14:08, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Italy Seemingly the ping didn't work. --Epìdosis 19:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Support About the / vs _ char in the URL, I hope that the BAV will avoid this difference. Anyway, in Wikidata, IMHO this can have an inelegant solution, using a script. --Bargioni (talk) 11:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree. Anyway, using _ here is not so bad, I think. --Epìdosis 19:09, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Pierpao (talk) 19:13, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I trust you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Sentruper (talk) 20:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support--Parma1983 (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --AlessioMela (talk) 10:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Susanna Giaccai (talk) 10:47, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good to know. --Sannita - not just another it.wiki sysop 11:11, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Yiyi .... (talk!) 12:46, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. YULdigitalpreservation (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Horcrux (talk) 23:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ciao @Epìdosis, Bargioni: I read diagonally.
- We definitely leave aside the slash for the underscore? Otherwise you must also change index.php compared to your testwd demonstration (after the creation of the property, by making a "pull request" from ArthurPSmith with str_replace("/", "_", $id) for example)
- There will be no obsolescence for this future property? (also after your discussion on itwp)
If not I thought to create the property incessantly… if we remain on the proposal, if not we must ask again the opinion of the voters, of course. (For the ping, did you not reach the authorized maximum of 50 pings at once?) Cordially. —Eihel (talk) 07:14, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eihel: No obsolescence previewed so far, yes! For the ping, yes, I reached the maximum of 50 :(

I would leave the "_" at the end ... but before, could you better explain me "you must also change index.php compared to your testwd demonstration (after the creation of the property, by making a "pull request" from ArthurPSmith with str_replace("/", "_", $id)) for example)"? I haven't understood what you mean. Thank you very much! --Epìdosis 09:01, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]