Hi,
On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Vicenç Riullop <vriullop(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Another approach has been used in Germany that other
fellows can explain
better. I think they used different templates and campaigns for each state.
In Germany, we have hundreds of different lists and databases, since
in some states every municipality is in charge of their cultural
heritage monuments, which means they will create an individual list.
Most of them don't have identifiers, and for many regions we don't
even have lists at all.
So what we did is work with 16 campaigns, one for each state, where we
asked the uploaders to enter the name of the municipality, but as you
can imagine, this led to a lot of work that had to be done afterwards.
What you see in the database are either the states where we have lists
and identifiers (right now there are just two, de-he and de-by, but
most likely two or three more will follow soon) or in the case of
Cologne and Bergheim the specific databases for two cities we did
projects in. As you can imagine, if we'd continue this way for all the
other cities we have template based lists for by now, this would be a
real mess. So we're trying to find a solution here, before we add more
of the smaller lists.
When you create an own ID, this is almost always a case of original
research and I'm really not in favor of creating a "Wikipedia
identifier" for objects, but maybe this is the only way to solve the
problem?
Kilian