I got kinda lost in this discussion, so I'm sorry if I repeat someone
else's approach.
What we did (regions: continental PT, Madeira Islands, Azores Islands
and a second/broader partner list).
We established ranges of numbers, something like this:
- 0-899999 were IGESPAR
- 900000-9099999 were Azores
- 910000-9100000 were Madeira
- 990000-9999999 were SIPA (all Portugal, non-protected buildings)
(ranges may be wrong).
Yes, it is not perfect, but allowed us to strip off the prefix using
ParserFunctions ( {{#if id>900000 and id<9100000|show IGESPAR icon;
perform subtraction id-9000000; show real ID}} ).
Keeping the work to numerics (or controlled parsable prefixes) will let
you recover the real IDs. That is indeed important, because you will have:
- List of Continental Portugal, where ID 1 exists, but its reference
(footnote) is "IGESPAR official lists";
- List of Madeira, where ID 1 exists, but its reference (footnote) is
"Madeira official lists";
And so on...
In the end, the WLM contestant will provide an ID of 99001523, which is
perfectly fine for WLM, and the Wikipedia reader will keep looking at ID
1523 with a footnote for SIPA.
And yes, we never pointed the user to the Wikipedia lists.
-NT
Em 23-05-2012 17:39, Platonides escreveu:
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(a)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...)
_______________________________________________
Wiki Loves Monuments mailing list
WikiLovesMonuments(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikilovesmonuments
http://www.wikilovesmonuments.eu