Not yet,

in the sense we are in a weird situation:

* we still don't know if we can LEGALLY do WLM...

* we have lists scatttered all over the places. We are contacting institutions and associations, and at the same time we are looking for major lists (as, the Ministry of Cultural Heritage). We have found (3 days ago...) one big list (around 120.000), which needs to be controlled. And we should ask permission for that.

* it is likely we'll have many small lists with different metadata and identifiers.

Aubrey

2012/3/5 Geiserich <geiserich@gmx.at>

The official lists from Austria do also not have an unique identifier, but we solved that problem. We just asked our national monument department and after some talks the sent us their identifiers. So we are now able to update our data yearly. Have you tried to talk to them Andrea?

Best Michael

Am 05.03.2012 22:07, schrieb Maarten Dammers:

Hi Andrea,

Op 5-3-2012 0:20, Andrea Zanni schreef:

Dear WLM list,
we are preparing the db for the list of monuments,
and we'd like to know how you faced the issue of generating an unique identifier
when you had to do that (because the official list didn't have it).
- is it useful (for some reason) to generate a "meaningful", "well-constructed" identifier (which can be resolved by a particular algorythm?)

Be very careful with this as this borders https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research
A combination of municipality and address is probably unique and could be used as identifier. It's weak, but probably just strong enough.

Maarten

_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu

_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu