On 23/05/12 16:22, Kilian Kluge wrote:
Hi Ilario,
I agree with you, thanks for structuring the discussion :)
On Wed, May 23, 2012 at 12:59 PM, Ilario Valdelli valdelli@gmail.com wrote:
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.
I would add to that one additional requirement: The IDs created by and for the database system should not show up on Wikipedia or Commons. A list on Wikipedia should always contain and display the actual local identifier as it is the case in the countries with just one numbering system. That's what I consider the "OR issue" that we need to avoid and which I tried to explain (poorly).
The problem is, if your lists don't include the "full ID", how do you expect the users to include the appropiate one when uploading? Even when you provide a very clear ID column some people will fail, but if they have to guess a prefix...
On the other hand, this is a point for not prefixing with something like the region postal code, but to use instead the region name/abbreviation. This way, its visually significant, both for someone expecting the local id ("Region-85, ok the id is 85") and more casual readers ("the monument #85 of region").
In Spain we made up a convention last year for WLM on how to write the identifiers, since the same db contained the ids formatted in several ways (with/without dots, spaces, brackets...)