Wikidata:Property proposal/PeriodO ID - Wikidata


Article Images

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

PeriodO "is a public domain gazetteer of scholarly definitions of historical, art-historical, and archaeological periods. It eases the task of linking among datasets that define periods differently. It also helps scholars and students see where period definitions overlap or diverge." There are links to PeriodO from the Library of Congress Linked Data Service, and this was how I discovered that there was no property in Wikidata to record a PeriodO ID. PeriodO is the only thesaurus specifically for time period terms that I am aware of. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Support This will be a useful property for adding identifiers to historical periods/spans of time. --Crystal Clements, University of Washington Libraries (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@UWashPrincipalCataloger, ArthurPSmith: Yes, Wikidata:Property proposal/PeriodO period ID is the active proposal. Wikidata:Property proposal/PeriodO definition ID and Wikidata:Property proposal/PeriodO collection ID are older proposals created before we really understood how the proposal process worked, and should be archived. Rybesh (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I didn't see this earlier proposal from December last year, which is still under discussion. I should probably withdraw this one, since it is identical to Wikidata:Property proposal/PeriodO period ID. I'd like to add some of my examples to that one though. How does one delete this proposal? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 19:33, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi @UWashPrincipalCataloger:@ Clements.UWLib:, I personally think this property would be useful in WD and I know that there have been conversations among the PeriodO people recently about how PeriodO could be implemented. The critique in the past proposals was that there were multiple definitions of, say, "Bronze Age" or say "French Bronze Age" and so if say, someone wanted to associate an entity with a PeriodO ID, there would not be a unique identifier. This is completely understandable because there might be lots of competing scholarly definitions of periods. To my mind, one solution would be to have more nuanced definitions of periods in WD i.e. an entity for Roman Republican Period (Stokstad, Marilyn, 1929-. Art history) and an entity for Roman Republican Period (British Museum). This would require a lot of clean up but it would meet the criticisms earlier. Alternatively, I wonder if PeriodO could be used not as an identifier but as a descriptor i.e. if a GLAM object (say, a painting) was identified as belonging to the "Roman Period", a user could associate the object with a PeriodO ID? I think that would be really good but I'm not sure if WD allows for external IDs to be used in statements like that. Valeriummaximum (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]