Hi all, I'm glad we're having this discussion.
First of all, I think it is important that identifiers are *always* only unique within a certain context. Almost every country will have a monument number 1. That means that whatever identifier you have in your country, it will not be absolutely unique, but only in the context of your country. So how do we make it unique on a global scale? Well, by combining it with the country information. Nothing is stopping us from doing the same on a subnational level. And nobody said that we *must* have exactly the same structure in every country. It would be great to have, but unrealistic. So if Germany splits up its database in 16 databases, one for every Land, that can make sense. Then there are indeed two solutions: 1) use one database, but combine the local identifier with a region code. 2) make seperate databases or 3) add a region field. In either way, the end result is unique enough, it just needs some technical working out. If the municipality key works in one country, it doesn't have to work in another. I suggest we use whatever system works best for your country - and implement that. Also merging municipalities are a big pain, but I'm sure there's a way to work around that too (for example setting up a renaming/redirect table). Lodewijk 2012/5/23 Ilario Valdelli <[email protected]> > On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Lodewijk <[email protected]>wrote: > >> restarting the thread with a correct title now :) >> >> 2012/5/22 Platonides <[email protected]> >> >>> On 22/05/12 01:11, Kilian Kluge wrote: >>> > So what do I suggest you do instead? >>> > >>> > As I said, we're facing a similar (if not worse) situation in Germany. >>> > We have literally more than one thousand institutions and authorities >>> > that issue monument lists for areas ranging from single municipalities >>> > to whole states (in total, there are about 1 million monuments). Many >>> > of them do assign numbers, but they all start with 1, so we have the >>> > issue that the IDs are not unique. >>> > >>> > What we're going to do now that we have enough lists on Wikipedia: We >>> > will use an already existing numbering scheme called the >>> > Gemeindekennziffer which assings a unique code to each municipality as >>> > a prefix to the official IDs. (The actual system is a little more >>> > difficult, in fact, the Gemeindekennziffer is structured into >>> > different parts, for example the first to numbers tell you what state >>> > the municipality is in and so on. Therefore we'll just use the first >>> > two numbers of the code as the prefix for states that have unique IDs >>> > already.) This way, the IDs on Wikipedia and on Commons stay the >>> > official ones, only inside the database we add a prefix which is not >>> > OR but based on an official numbering scheme. I'm sure that you can >>> > find a similar numbering system for Italy! >>> >>> What identifier is used by people when uploading the images? >>> If the unprefixed one, how do you find out automatically the >>> municipality? >>> >>> > > This thread is really interesting because it is important to define some > key points: > > a) the structure of the data is *not" an original research as the creation > of the templates is not considered original. The identifier is mainly a > problem of the organization of data. > b) the unique identifier is becoming to be an important question mainly if > there are some tools which will help the uploading and the identification > of the monuments > c) the local identifiers cannot be lost in order to keep the links wth > other "official lists" > > These preamble would demonstrate that the definition of an unique > identifier for all monuments of all countries is important and that the > list of monuments is basically a "database". > > The structure of the database is not an original research but it is part > of the "infrastructure". The local identifiers cannot be primary key > because there is the problem of redundancy (mainly if we have a unique > repository for all countries), so to have a progress we have to define our > own *primary key* and connect it with the local identifiers in a way that > can assure a continuity and a long life of the new structure of the list of > the monuments. > > These "new system of identifiers" may help some projects like that of the > monuments of the Portuguese Empire which is basically a *view* of a > database. > > The problem faced by Germany and by Poland and by Italy with the regional > lists of monuments is only a partial vision of a biggest problem to have a > unique repository. > > The use of an identifier for municipality is not a good candidate for a > primary key because in some countries the municipalities may be aggregated > or may be split year by year. Probably an identifier connected with the > geographical coordinates may be a better candidate... but the real question > is that the identifier is a good point to be discussed and can become > urgent in the near future. > > -- > Ilario Valdelli > Wikimedia CH > Verein zur Förderung Freien Wissens > Association pour l’avancement des connaissances libre > Associazione per il sostegno alla conoscenza libera > Switzerland - 8008 Zürich > Tel: +41764821371 > http://www.wikimedia.ch > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments > http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu >
_______________________________________________ Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu
