Property talk:P5782
Documentation
database identifier from the Italian Ministry MIBACT (DBUnico 2.0)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5782#Single value, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5782#Unique value, SPARQL (every item), SPARQL (by value)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5782#Item P1435, search, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5782#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5782#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P5782#Label in 'it' language, search, SPARQL
|
Other MiBACT Identifiers, specific identifier
[edit]Hello,
This property is really important in order to link together Wikidata and MiBACT data clouds.
What I would like to discuss is that in my opinion we should change the different labels and descriptions of this property in order to point out that it is a property related to MiBACT Id for Cultural Institute or Site, not to all the MiBACT database. In the italian description is already specified (luoghi=locations).
As an example, we couldn't link the item Primavera (Q549847) using DBUnico MIBACT ID (P5782) with the following page: Id 0900158550 of the Historic or Artistic Property catalogue.
I wanted to start a discussion instead of changing labels and description of this property.
I could also help by creating the property proposal for the other MiBACT IDs. Here I list a couple of examples:
- MiBACT Id for Historic or Artistic Property
- MiBACT Id for Architectural or Landscape Heritage
- MiBACT Id for Photographic Heritage
- MiBACT Id for Cultural Event
- MiBACT Id for Music Heritage
- MiBACT Id for Naturale Heritage
- MiBACT Id for Numismatic Property
- MiBACT Id for Archaeological Property
What do you think? Thank you,
--Luca.favorido (talk) 16:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Luca.favorido: Hi! I thank you for the proposal, personally I greatly support the need of having one or more properties covering all the parts of the website dati.beniculturali.it. Exactly some days ago Wikidata:Property proposal/dati.beniculturali.it ID has been proposed and I hope that, probably with some adjustments, this new proposed property can cover most or all of the parts of the website. Anyway, I think that the correct way of acting is creating one or more new properties, instead of changing this property (in general, changing existing properties is a discouraged practice). I would suggest to continue the reflection in the property proposal. Looking forward to hear your opinion there, --Epìdosis 18:28, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- @Epìdosis: Hello Epìdosis, first of all thanks for your response! That makes sense, changing a property would have effects on all the elements linked to that property. I've read the property proposal by Chiaraven, I will comment directly on that property. I've also subscribed to the WikiProject Italy, I will read the pages of the project and then in the future I could give my help. ;-) --Luca.favorido (talk) 19:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
- Italy-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 constraints on items using them
- Properties with entity type constraints
- Properties with scope constraints
- Properties with label language constraints