Wikidata talk:WikiProject Numismatics
This WikiProject page is explicitely inspired (read: a kind of plagiarism in good faith) to WikiProject Books. After a survey of existing applicable properties, other properties may be inspired from http://nomisma.org/nuds --FedericoMorando (talk) 07:12, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Broadening the Project
edit@FedericoMorando: Should the Project also include medails as these in many ways have the same Properties and also the same designers. Breg Pmt (talk) 16:26, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
- @Pmt: Sure, I suppose you're right. I didn't do that in the first place just because I'm ignorant about medals. Anyway, I'm going to change everything accordingly. FedericoMorando (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
- In that case I would suggest renaming it to "WikiProject numismatics" and broadening it also to include tokens and other exonumia, maybe even paper money and scrip. -- 徵國單 (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Support --Marsupium (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
- In that case I would suggest renaming it to "WikiProject numismatics" and broadening it also to include tokens and other exonumia, maybe even paper money and scrip. -- 徵國單 (討論 🀄) (方孔錢 💴) 14:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Coin orientation
edit@FedericoMorando: what about coin orientation (Q5141550)? Maybe we need a very specific property for this. --AlessioMela (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I suppose we can use this as a qualifier for made from material (P186), with a percentage. Probably we have the problem of "circa" values that are difficult to express linked to a qualifier. --AlessioMela (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
- What about proportion (P1107)? Yes, unfortunately sourcing circumstances (P1480) cannot be used as a qualifier to a qualifier … --Marsupium (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Single coin vs. coin series
editHi, I don't see straightforward answer on wikiproject page, so I want to ask you this: Q38151238 (single notable coin) and twenty-five øre (Q218484) (coin series) got the same instance of (P31) statement, instance of (P31)coin (Q41207). Is that correct approach? Yarl 💭 15:19, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- That isn't a good situation. A case for subclass of (P279)? --Marsupium (talk) 15:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe an new item Coin edition as for stamp series and stamp where instance of (P31) stamp edition (Q16937116) (with description set of stamps with similar features and value), will be usefull. And With Coin edition has part(s) (P527) coin (Q41207)? Breg Pmt (talk) 21:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Conceptual Model
editNeither Nomisma nor NUDS follow an explicit data model. It might be useful to explore more explicitly how current data models, including the ones implicit in Nomisma and NUDS, align with evolving standards for modeling descriptive data for cultural heritage resources. I have found FRBRoo very promising in that respect, and we probably have much to look forward to with LRMoo, the object-oriented Library Reference Model, once it is released.
FRBRoo is very good at combining the modeling of intellectual content with modelling the physical object. In doing so, it allows for the modelling of multiple Work/Expression/Manifestation "trees" to come together to make up one physical item. For Numismatics, that's relevant not least because the model snugly accommodates the description of two sides of a coin as entities rather than properties, by following their instantiation through the work/expression/manifestation levels to the die marriage (manifestation product type) and down to the individual object.
With other entities (authorizing body, issuing body, mint, artist, engraver etc. added:
It is also relevant because it allows description at any level, whether on the item level (often the default in Numismatics) or the aggregate. Finally, items and aggregates can be members of other aggregates both physical or intellectual, e.g. hoards, collections, exhibits, die marriages, currencies etc.
That's why I'm very interested in mapping wikidata and Nomisma identities/properties to the FRBRoo structure for Numismatic resources. A good start might be the seven major FBRBRoo/WEMI entities involved. I've started to parse out the Nomisma properties onto the model, with some wikidata properties filled in also. In a second pass, agents, places, administrative events, bibliographic references, and archaeological context will need to be added on.
instance of currency (Q8142)
edit(instance of complex work (F15) (Q61196382))
| Free-text label | Nomisma property | Wikidata property/relationship |
|---|---|---|
| exist date from | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasStartDate (in scope? | start time (P580) or inception (P571) |
| exist date to | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasEndDate (in scope?) | end time (P582) |
| legislative body | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasAuthority | legislative body (P194) |
| has part | has part(s) (P527) / instances of currency unit (Q61200261) | |
| jurisdiction | applies to jurisdiction (P1001) |
instances of currency unit (Q61200261)
edit(subclass of currency (Q8142); instance of individual work (F14) (Q61196352))
| Free-text label | Nomisma property | Wikidata property/relationship |
|---|---|---|
| exist date from | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasStartDate (in scope? | inception (P571) |
| exist date to | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasEndDate (in scope?) | end time (P582) |
| jurisdiction | applies to jurisdiction (P1001) | |
| legislative body | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasAuthority | legislative body (P194) |
| has part | has part(s) (P527) / instances of denomination (Q918448) | |
| unit of account | instance of (P31) / unit of account (Q747699) |
instances of denomination (Q918448)
edit(expression of currency unit (Q61200261); instance of self-contained expression (F22) (Q61196126))
| Free-text label | Nomisma property | Wikidata property/relationship |
|---|---|---|
| face value | face value (P3934) | |
| count of unit (count+unit=denomination, e.g. "1/2"+"U.S. cent") |
quantity (P1114) + unit qualifier: instance of currency unit (Q61200261) | |
| exist date from | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasStartDate (in scope? | start time (P580) |
| exist date to | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasEndDate (in scope?) | end time (P582) |
| legislative body | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasAuthority | legislative body (P194) |
| jurisdiction | applies to jurisdiction (P1001) |
instances of type (numismatics) (Q61130974)
edit(expression of creative work (Q17537576) and denomination (Q918448); instance of publication expression (F24) (Q61130262))
| Free-text label | Nomisma property | Wikidata property/relationship |
|---|---|---|
| use date from | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasStartDate (in scope? | start time (P580) |
| use date to | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasEndDate (in scope?) | end time (P582) |
| central motif | depicts (P180) / ... + qualifiers expression, gesture or body pose (P6022), location (P276) | |
| attribute | http://nomisma.org/ontology#hasIconography, http://nomisma.org/ontology#hasPortrait |
has part(s) (P527) / attribute (Q758238) + qualifier depicts (P180) |
| adjunct | has part(s) (P527) / adjunct (art) (Q61132439) + qualifier depicts (P180) | |
| legend | http://nomisma.org/ontology#hasLegend | has part(s) (P527) / legend (coin) (Q61132822) + qualifiers writing system (P282), inscription (P1684), direction (P560) |
| exergue | has part(s) (P527) / exergue (Q9251657) + qualifiers writing system (P282), inscription (P1684), direction (P560) | |
| authorizing body | http://nomisma.org/ontology - hasAuthority, http://nomisma.org/ontology#hasStatedAuthority |
authority (P797) |
instances of die (Q60644990)
edit(manifestation of type (numismatics) (Q61130974); instance of manifestation product type (F3) (Q60644797))
(instance of item (F5) (Q60644781), die (Q60644990))
instances of die marriage (Q60644899)
edit(instance of manifestation product type (F3) (Q60644797), manifestation of denomination (Q918448) and type (numismatics) (Q61130974)))
instances of coin (Q41207)
edit(instance of (item (F5) (Q60644781), die marriage (Q60644899)))
Regine Heberlein (talk) 21 December 2018
- Wow, lots of nice thinking here. The immediate question/issue for now is whether most of the "instance of coin" statements should be changed to "subclass of" if they are not referring to a specific physical notable coin. I'm coming from the angle of GLAM collections, so we have multiple notable coins that are truly "instance of" coins, and need to clean up this model. -- Fuzheado (talk) 11:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
- @Fuzheado: Agreed. I'm working my way through the relationships and properties. For the moment, my proposal for expression of (P6524) was approved, so I'm putting it to use along with manifestation of (P1557). Heberlei (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
What are the best modelled items for your areas of interest?
editHi all
Over the past few months myself and others have been thinking about the best way to help people model subjects consistently on Wikidata and provide new contributors with a simple way to understand how to model content on different subjects. Our first solution is to provide some best practice examples of items for different subjects which we are calling Model items. E.g the item for William Shakespeare (Q692) is a good example to follow for creating items about playwright (Q214917). These model items are linked to from the item for the subject to make them easier to find and we have tried to make simple to understand instructions.
We would like subject matter experts to contribute their best examples of well modelled items. We are asking all the Wikiprojects to share with us the kinds of subjects you most commonly add information about and the best examples you have of this kind of item. We would like to have at least 5 model items for each subject to show the diversity of the subject e.g just having William Shakespeare (Q692) as a model item for playwright (Q214917), while helpful may not provide a good example for people trying to model modern poets from Asia.
You can add model items yourself by using the instructions at Wikidata:Model items. It may be helpful to have a discussion here to collate information first.
Thanks
Propals regarding coins
editPlease be aware of the proposal https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata:Property_proposal/axe made by User:Christelle Molinié Pmt (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Authority
edit
Notified participants of WikiProject Numismatics @Pmt: @ Heberlei:
Hello, we were wondering about the best way to model authorities in WD. For example, if you look at this coin Tetradrachm of Caracalla, Roman Emperor, from Cyrrhus, Yale University Art Gallery, inv. 1938.6000.56 (Q100477694), the coin was produced in the regnal years of Caracalla, under the authority of Caracalla. See here for more info. What would be the best way to model this? depicts (P180) is not always a good property in these scenarios and commissioned by (P88) is perhaps too strong a claim (the emperor may have oversight of use of his imperial image but the processes of commission can vary dramatically in different parts of the empire with local boards responsible for minting). I see that one user has used authority (P797) with this coin Caliph standing (coin face) (Q66372570). I think that this might be an appropriate property, so long as it conforms to the original intended purpose of the property and can be documented here. Otherwise, it might be suitable to create a property like "regnal period of" or something which could also be applied. What do people think would be the best way to model? Valeriummaximum (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ FedericoMorando: Any other project members who might have thoughts?Valeriummaximum (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @Valeriummaximum: I'm not a member of this project, but I'm interested in the question. Looking at the use of authority (P797), it seems to me that using it for coins is perhaps stretching too far the scope of the property. I think we should either slighlty repurpose central bank/issuer (P562) to also include monarchs or other ancient states that didn't have a central bank (it is used liked this on Umayyad fals (issue 690-702) (Q66372313), but with a lot of warnings), or create a new property for this. --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Jahl de Vautban I think central bank/issuer would require a lot of repurposing. A lot of the constraints like jurisdiction/currency. Do you think regnal years might be a good property? Thank you! Valeriummaximum (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do also think that regnal years could be a decent prpoerty. For coins as described above but if proposing such a propoerty can it be broadedned to other items. Pmt (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know, I have some difficulties translating "regnal years" in my native language into something that could describe the autority issuing coin or others items. Such a property would also have to be completed by a qualifier, as the main statement could either contain the dates or the monarch, not both. Furthermore, if a new property is created it should also adress the coinage of states such as Rome during the Republic or the Greek cities-States that don't have an unique autority issuing coins. In this cas, I would favor a property along issued by (P2378) but specifically for coins or documents. (You may want to expand the discussion in the Project chat). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- I think the issue with the ancient world is that the emperor might have a close or distant relationship with the commissioning of coins. Greek cities in the Roman period might have local commissioning boards that use the emperor's image but the emperor himself has only a distant oversight (or none at all) of the process. The emperor would have authority over the coins on some higher level but didn't actively commission them or issue them, so regnal years would at least capture the fact that the coins were produced in that regnal period. But I also see the issue that "regnal years" doesn't really capture the institutional power/role of the emperor. Valeriummaximum (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- I don't know, I have some difficulties translating "regnal years" in my native language into something that could describe the autority issuing coin or others items. Such a property would also have to be completed by a qualifier, as the main statement could either contain the dates or the monarch, not both. Furthermore, if a new property is created it should also adress the coinage of states such as Rome during the Republic or the Greek cities-States that don't have an unique autority issuing coins. In this cas, I would favor a property along issued by (P2378) but specifically for coins or documents. (You may want to expand the discussion in the Project chat). --Jahl de Vautban (talk) 12:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- I do also think that regnal years could be a decent prpoerty. For coins as described above but if proposing such a propoerty can it be broadedned to other items. Pmt (talk) 11:42, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you Jahl de Vautban I think central bank/issuer would require a lot of repurposing. A lot of the constraints like jurisdiction/currency. Do you think regnal years might be a good property? Thank you! Valeriummaximum (talk) 10:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
- Hi @ Valeriummaximum: I'm intrigued by your original question. Could you elaborate on situations when depicts (P180) is not a good property? My thinking so far has been that precisely because it is limited in scope to the pictorial aspect of the representation, it can be neatly separated from other properties dealing with the legal aspects of the relationship, such as authority (P797), legislative body (P194), applies to jurisdiction (P1001), or central bank/issuer (P562).
- @ Heberlei: I imagine that most of the time curators decide that a coin belongs to a regnal period because it depicts that emperor. But it's possible to imagine a scenario where the emperor is not depicted but their spouse or children or a magistrate in their reign, or some other iconography, associated with them. It seems a better catch-all like "regnal period" or "authority" would be better. Valeriummaximum (talk) 16:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Whatabout using time period (P2348): time period (historic period or era, sports season, theatre season, legislative period etc.) in which the subject occurred or with which it is associated and then create an item (Q) like The regal years of king/empereor xxxx? Pmt (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Valeriummaximum: If I understand your objective correctly, then "regnal years" or time period (P2348): time period (historic period or era, sports season, theatre season, legislative period etc.) in which the subject occurred or with which it is associated doesn't quite get you everything you need, does it? It only establishes a temporal relationship, not the political or juridical relationship. It would be useful for cases where the issuing authority cannot be determined, to allow inferences about the possible authority. For that use case, it's definitely worth pursuing. However, in cases where that authority is known, a more direct property would be preferable. I also agree that the property describing the iconography should not stand in for a separate property describing the authority. I would use depicts (P180) to describe the iconography of a (single) side of an issue, in conjunction with an additional property to describe the issuing authority where known. In my opinion central bank/issuer (P562) needs revision anyway--the slash to me is a giveaway that it should be split into two properties--and if a resulting standalone "issuer" property offers you a way forward, that might be worth exploring? Heberlei (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Heberlei: I feel it's not an either/or as well. For the coins in the gallery I am trying to upload, like Tetradrachm of Caracalla, Roman Emperor, from Cyrrhus, Yale University Art Gallery, inv. 1938.6000.56 (Q100477694), "authority of" or "reign of" would capture the general supervisory/oversight role of the emperor without making strong claims about the exact process of commissioning. But it's certainly true that when it comes to specific coins, we could also make more confident claims about depiction and about commissioners when reviewing the object itself (but this is not clear from the metadata that the gallery keeps). @ Pmt: I worry that creating a new WD entity for each regnal period might be a heavy burden (we have possibly more than 100 unique emperors/rulers for the collection, often with uncertain dates, so a special property I think would be best.Valeriummaximum (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- @ Valeriummaximum: If I understand your objective correctly, then "regnal years" or time period (P2348): time period (historic period or era, sports season, theatre season, legislative period etc.) in which the subject occurred or with which it is associated doesn't quite get you everything you need, does it? It only establishes a temporal relationship, not the political or juridical relationship. It would be useful for cases where the issuing authority cannot be determined, to allow inferences about the possible authority. For that use case, it's definitely worth pursuing. However, in cases where that authority is known, a more direct property would be preferable. I also agree that the property describing the iconography should not stand in for a separate property describing the authority. I would use depicts (P180) to describe the iconography of a (single) side of an issue, in conjunction with an additional property to describe the issuing authority where known. In my opinion central bank/issuer (P562) needs revision anyway--the slash to me is a giveaway that it should be split into two properties--and if a resulting standalone "issuer" property offers you a way forward, that might be worth exploring? Heberlei (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
- Whatabout using time period (P2348): time period (historic period or era, sports season, theatre season, legislative period etc.) in which the subject occurred or with which it is associated and then create an item (Q) like The regal years of king/empereor xxxx? Pmt (talk) 18:21, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
New property ; has graphical element
editThe property has graphical element (P9344): mark, motif, coat of arms, map, or other graphic element added to a creative work have been created. Breg Pmt (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
New property ; Archer ID
editThe property ARCHER ID (P10264): identifier for a person or an organization in ARCHER, the authority file of the American Numismatic Society has been created. Pmt (talk) 12:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Proofread before mass import
editHi y'all
I'm a Wikimedian in Résidence at the Museum of Brittany (Q3329701). I just created a first item about a coin: Q113804487, it's justa draft for now and I would love to have some review, comment, etc.
For the context, I'm planning to do a mass import of coins (both on Wikidata and Commons), it's a wiki, one could always correct afterward but it would be easier to get it right on the first time.
Notified participants of WikiProject Numismatics
Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 10:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @VIGNERON en résidence: Looks good! I imagine that the mass import will have references in every statement, right? Otherwise, it seems nice. Is there any other properties that you think are missing on Wikidata? I am planning to propose an "edge type" (e.g. "smooth" for https://en.numista.com/catalogue/pieces1004.html). Maybe you could add shape (P1419) and face value (P3934) if available. TiagoLubiana (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @TiagoLubiana: ah sure, I forgot to put the references everywhere, it's done now! Thanks for noticing.
- For shape (P1419), it's only used on 3 coins: Q3595995 2 cent euro coin (Q2320932), Third guinea (Q7785062) and allways with the value round (Q59564206), maybe because we assume coins are round by default?
- For face value (P3934), should I put "1 denarius (Q187776)"?
- I also add image (P18) once the import is done on Commons.
- Question: on depicts (P180) how can I indicate it's not fully Libertas (Q1129855) but only her head? (I've seen shown with features (P1354) in qualifier and it will be useful for toher case but it doesn't feel right here).
- Finally, this coin was probably not the best example as it's a fake/non-official coin (68-69 was a trouble time, not sure how to indicate that by the way).
- Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 12:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Properties are used for both particular coins and coin types; Third guinea (Q7785062) is currently misclassified, look also for subclass of (P279)* coin (Q41207).
- For face value, seems that the practice is like that, the value and the currency.
- There are many non-round coins around, though most are indeed round (the first Brazilian coin was square-ish, https://blog.myheritage.com.br/historia/a-primeira-moeda-do-brasil-o-ducado-do-brasil/). If it is available for the batch import, it would be nice to add.
- About the depicts: not sure; one (brute force) option is creating a "Libertas head" item. applies to part (P518) refers to the subject of the triple; maybe we need an equivalent for the object of the triple? TiagoLubiana (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @TiagoLubiana: I did used "wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q41207"
Ok, I could add shape (P1419) = round (Q59564206) to all coins I'll import but that will be referenceless... Yes, a new property mix of applies to part (P518) and object of statement has role (P3831) would be ideal, for now, I'll just import without the precision. Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @TiagoLubiana: I did used "wdt:P31/wdt:P279* wd:Q41207"
- @VIGNERON en résidence: Should country of origin (P495): country of origin of this item (creative work, food, phrase, product, etc.) be used instead of location of formation (P740): location where a group or organization was formed. Is it possible to have image (P18): image of relevant illustration of the subject; if available, also use more specific properties (sample: coat of arms image, locator map, flag image, signature image, logo image, collage image) added? Will inspired by (P941): work, human, place or event which inspired this creative work or fictional entity be usefull as it is an imitation? I also should recommend considering has graphical element (P9344): mark, motif, coat of arms, map, or other graphic element added to a creative work. What about fabrication method (P2079): method, process or technique used to grow, cook, weave, build, assemble, manufacture the item milled coinage (Q3860741) or or coining (Q863298). Pmt (talk) 19:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Pmt: thanks for the comments.
- Hmm, most of the places in my data are cities and not country, so I prefered being consistent and always using location of formation (P740), should I also copy it in country of origin (P495) when the place is a country?
- I'll do the mass import on Commons afterwards (since it relies on Wikidata), meanwhile you can already see the image if you follow the identifier ;)
- Oh yes! inspired by (P941) is a great idea, but we need to create the coin type before (it's http://numismatics.org/ocre/id/ric.1(2).cw.27 but we don't seem to have it yet). That said, it's an exception, I'll do this by hand after the mass import.
- What value should I use for has graphical element (P9344)? (apparently, it's currently never used on coins on Wikidata items)
- I'll double-check the database but we don't seem to have data about fabrication method (P2079).
- Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 08:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @VIGNERON en résidence: Thanks for replying and interresting work For has graphical element (P9344) I am thinking of things like for instance a ring of pearls around the outer part of the coin, symmetrical dots, a garland, and so on... Also, when the location of formation (P740) and/or country of origin (P495) it also leads to the fact that the coins was issued by some legal state or authority should also applies to jurisdiction (P1001): the item (institution, law, public office, public register...) or statement belongs to or has power over or applies to the value (a territorial jurisdiction: a country, state, municipality, ...) apply. And we also have historical region (P6885). In general all ancient coins was stamped, milled coins came with Newton, but of course it has to be verified that the coin is stamped. I suppose that coin type (Q113813711) will be taken care of? Pmt (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Pmt: hmm, how do I determine what goes in depicts (P180) and what goes in has graphical element (P9344)? More generally, I can only import the data that exists. I'll do my best to retrieve and align all data with Wikidata ontology but I can't invent data (unless if the're trivial like "shape : round"). I'll prepare a small OpenRefine batch (around 100 coins) in the next weeks so you can better see if things are good or need correction. Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- Hello again! I am thinking that (in general) an emperors head on a coin is a depicts (P180): entity visually depicted in an image, literarily described in a work, or otherwise incorporated into an audiovisual or other medium; see also P921, 'main subject' while the laurel wreath (Q734844) and pearl rings are has graphical element (P9344): mark, motif, coat of arms, map, or other graphic element added to a creative work. Nothing more than is documented should of course not the added to the item, but if a catalouge in other sources says that this type of coins are stamped or belived issued under the reign of an emperor such things can be added later, and as it is not created so many items of this kind I think that as many as possible Properties is worth discussing in advance as it clearly will set a kind of "standard" Pmt (talk) 10:23, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Pmt: hmm, how do I determine what goes in depicts (P180) and what goes in has graphical element (P9344)? More generally, I can only import the data that exists. I'll do my best to retrieve and align all data with Wikidata ontology but I can't invent data (unless if the're trivial like "shape : round"). I'll prepare a small OpenRefine batch (around 100 coins) in the next weeks so you can better see if things are good or need correction. Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 09:17, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
- @VIGNERON en résidence: Thanks for replying and interresting work For has graphical element (P9344) I am thinking of things like for instance a ring of pearls around the outer part of the coin, symmetrical dots, a garland, and so on... Also, when the location of formation (P740) and/or country of origin (P495) it also leads to the fact that the coins was issued by some legal state or authority should also applies to jurisdiction (P1001): the item (institution, law, public office, public register...) or statement belongs to or has power over or applies to the value (a territorial jurisdiction: a country, state, municipality, ...) apply. And we also have historical region (P6885). In general all ancient coins was stamped, milled coins came with Newton, but of course it has to be verified that the coin is stamped. I suppose that coin type (Q113813711) will be taken care of? Pmt (talk) 09:02, 8 September 2022 (UTC)
Metaclass for coin types coin type (Q113813711)
editHello; recently coin types were only represented as P279* coin (Q41207), leaving them without P31 values. It is interesting to have a common P31 value to facilitate SPARQL queries and make it clear the distinction between single coins and coin types.
There are many coin types currently labeled as instances of coins (see this clean up query: https://w.wiki/5g49) .
I am adding the type to all subclasses of coin (query: https://w.wiki/5g4A, Quickstatements batch: https://quickstatements.toolforge.org/#/batch/97506)
Let me know if there are any questions or comments on that TiagoLubiana (talk) 14:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
OCRE id
editHi y'all,
Following my message above, I noticed that Online Coins of the Roman Empire ID (P9645) is only used 6 times! Is it on purpose? (with some reason behind it) or just because of a lack of time/person interrested? (I will probably be too busy but maybe I could help, and I would definitiely be interrested if someone does the work)
Cheers, VIGNERON en résidence (talk) 15:27, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
- Its on my to do list when this winters setting in Pmt (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Modeling RRC and RIC
editHi all, I am working on a massive import of coins (or rather coin type (Q113813711)) for two Roman database which already have an external property: Coinage of the Roman Republic Online ID (P4455) and Online Coins of the Roman Empire ID (P9645). Regarding the Nomisma data model and it's mapping to Wikidata, I have made a table for concording properties in Nomisma and properties in Wikidata. Do you have any thoughts?
One question would be how to link these coin type (Q113813711) to a manifestation of this type, i.e. a specific coin (Q41207) in a museum's collection. For example, Q110426238 is a specific coin (Q41207) of RIC I Nero 1. RIC I Nero 1 will eventually have a Qitem, but how would you link the type of coin to a specific coin itself? Thanks guys! Liber008 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Notified participants of WikiProject Numismatics
Notified participants of WikiProject Antiquity
Liber008 (talk) 15:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Liber008: very interesting project! To link one single coin to the type of coin I think exemplar of (P1574) would fit well. The data model seems good, I have just three doubts: 1) why two lines with time period (P2348), maybe the second is just a typo; 2) for "nmo:hasDenomination" maybe exemplar of (P1574) would be better than instance of (P31); 3) the use of inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) is confusing for me, especially for P576, which seems to hint the coin doesn't exist anymore - if I am understanding correctly, what Nomisma wants to say is that the coin has been produced between time X and time Y, so the correspondence with these Wikidata properties seems not fit to me; I am wondering about start of covered period (P7103) and end of covered period (P7104), but I haven't much confidence with them in fact so I'm unsure. --Epìdosis 16:49, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think that the case of nmo:hasDenomination, subclass of (P279) might work better as it is a link between a more particular coin type and a broader one, but they are both types.
- I'd use exemplar of (P1574) only for particular coins (e.g. 2,50 Escudos (Q89803049), a coin in the Paulista Museum collection). TiagoLubiana (talk) 19:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Actually, it can be currently added to face value (P3934) if the value is known.
- I would support, though, a property for "denomination" to be used on stamps and coins, if it is any easier to import that info. TiagoLubiana (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- What Epìdosis and TiagoLubiana have said sounds reasonable all in all. Just one thought regarding "nmo:hasStartDate" and "nmo:hasEndDate": Instead of replacing inception (P571) and dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) with start of covered period (P7103) and end of covered period (P7104), as Epìdosis has proposed, I would rather suggest to simply restrict oneself to inception (P571) for single coins. As Epìdosis has rightly objected, dissolved, abolished or demolished date (P576) implies that the physical coin doesn't exist anymore. Therefore, it can't be used unless a single coin really has been destroyed. But inception (P571) is widely used in Wikidata to express e. g. the building date of buildings like Notre-Dame de Chartres (Q180274) or for the production date of archaeological artifacts like Capitoline Wolf (Q408623) - so this property is very well suited to also define the minting date of a single coin. It is the standard property for Wikidata statements like this and can be used in a very differentiated manner, e. g. with earliest date (P1319) and latest date (P1326) as allowed qualifiers constraint (Q21510851) if the coinage of a single coin can only be defined via terminus post/ante quem.
- For denominations like denarius (Q187776) I would suggest to use start time (P580) and end time (P582) - simply because these are the properties that are also used for modern denominations like Croatian kuna (Q26360) or Euro (Q4916). --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 21:08, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- PS: Besides denominations and single coins, a third category are the coin types (like RIC IV Geta 59A (Q48350193)). For them, I would tend to use the same solution as for the denominations: use start time (P580) and end time (P582) as Wikidata equivalent of "nmo:hasStartDate" and "nmo:hasEndDate". --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @DerMaxdorferThanks for the very interesting thoughts! My future upload is exactly for your third category, coin types. Your example is exactly one of them actually. I would then use start time (P580) and end time (P582) for them. Liber008 (talk) 12:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- PS: Besides denominations and single coins, a third category are the coin types (like RIC IV Geta 59A (Q48350193)). For them, I would tend to use the same solution as for the denominations: use start time (P580) and end time (P582) as Wikidata equivalent of "nmo:hasStartDate" and "nmo:hasEndDate". --DerMaxdorfer (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TiagoLubiana I always wondered why Wikidata doesn't have a property for Denomination, as face value (P3934) can't really be applied to ancient coins because the denomination is not written on them. I think it would be a good property for anyone working in numismatics. @DerMaxdorfer, @Epìdosis, would you also support the creation of such a property? Liber008 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it could be useful having a property for Denomination, as @TiagoLubiana:; the alternative of using subclass of (P279) (since we are talking of types of coins and not of single material coins) seems to me a reasonable Plan B. Epìdosis 12:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Epìdosis Thanks for your comments! 1)the double time period (P2348) was indeed a typo, the second one was meant to be inscription (P1684), I fixed it in the table. For 2) and 3), see my following comments.
- And exemplar of (P1574) seems perfect for linking a coin to a type of coin indeed, I wasn't aware of this property! It seems that as for now the property is mostly intended for written document (with the constraints), but I don't see any reason with it couldn't be applied to other kinds of documents such as coins. Liber008 (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I kinda changed my mind around two things. First, nmo:hasIssuer is exactly the property central bank/issuer (P562) in Wikidata, even though as for one, the property's constraints are only designed to be for bank. I don't see why a human (Q5) couldn't be an issuer of a coin or type of coin.
- Second, regarding the first change, I would then change to matching property for nmo:hasMint for location of creation (P1071). What do you think? Liber008 (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Medieval Coin Hoards of the British Isles ID
editHello! I put a proposal in for MCHBI IDs as I think linking that database with Wikidata would be useful Lajmmoore (talk) 22:50, 6 November 2024 (UTC)