Property talk:P1149
Documentation
subject classification number used in the Library of Congress Classification system; does not include the shelflisting portion assigned to individual publications
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1149#Single value, SPARQL
[A-Z]{1,3}(\d+(\.\d+)?( *\.[A-Z]{0,3}\d+([ -]\.?[A-Z]{0,3}\d+)?)?( *\d+[a-z]*)?)?-?([A-Z]{1,3}(\d+(\.\d+)?( *\.[A-Z]{0,3}\d+([ -]\.?[A-Z]{0,3}\d+)?)?( *\d+[a-z]*)?)?)?
”: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1149#Format, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1149#Entity types
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1149#Scope, SPARQL
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P1149#allowed qualifiers, SPARQL
This property is being used by:
Please notify projects that use this property before big changes (renaming, deletion, merge with another property, etc.) |
|
Source for these letter codes
[edit]The source for the classes and their letters is here: Library of Congress Classification Outline. Danrok (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
- The identifier only starts with a letter but it also contains numbers. Example: City planning (Q69883) = HT165.5-169.9. --Kolja21 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Single value constraint
[edit]The single value constraint on this is wrong. Books have multiple LOC classifications all the time. Sometimes libraries get multiple copies of popular books just so they can file them under multiple numbers. --Ssd (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
- Can confirm. An example is 74-80703 for Cyborg IV (Q5197893), which has
PZ4.C133 Cz $a PS3553.A38
(which I entered asPZ4.C133
andPS3553.A38
. --Pokechu22 (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
- This is a particular case unique to children's literature. Children's lit is classed by LC in PZ, but some libraries choose to file their children's fiction with the main collection of authors, so LC provided the alternative classification number PS3553.A38. Another common situation is whether to class bibliographies in Z or in the class number specific to the main subject. For example, a bibliography on bears would be classed in Z7996.B43 by LC, but many libraries choose to class it with all other works on bears at QL737.C27. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 18:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
But what if a book describes how Augustine of Hippo (Q8018) was attacked by a bear or raised a bear? Vladimir Alexiev (talk) 02:03, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
- ? I'm not sure what you are asking? Such a book would only class in one number, a number for biography of Augustine of Hippo. It would not ever be classed under bears, if that is what you are asking? This is not the same situation as a work such as literature that could be classed in one place for adults, and in a different place for children. Or under a subject number or under a Z bibliography numbers. Those are the most common situations where something can have two or more valid LC classification numbers. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 02:01, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
Regex constraints
[edit]I made the constraint laxer. The previous one was incorrect, even a simple case like BJ1-1725 was not recognised. Nemo 18:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
- This valid range of numbers is getting a format constraint warning: KM1-KM999. I've used it in Asian law (Q100709157). It is a valid range: https://id.loc.gov/authorities/classification/KM1-KM999.html I tried giving it as KM1-999, but that does not resolve in id.loc.gov. Can someone please review the Regex constraint and revise it so that this range is accepted? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 20:00, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
- I haven't seen an answer to this and have another item that I'd like to add a range to. The LC subject authority record for Cave churches (cave church (Q64732764)) gives two separate LC classifications: 1) NA4910 (Church architecture: General) and 2) NA5201-NA6113 (By country). How can I record the range NA5201-NA6113 in the item? UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 00:39, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Range of numbers
[edit]One used to be able to record a range of numbers and now when one attempts to, it won't even allow one to input such a range. There needs to be a means to record ranges, since there often is not a single LC classification number that corresponds to a topic, but a range instead. For example, if you look at the LC subject authority record for Peramelemorphia (Q244587) at http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh99010660, you will see that a range of numbers is given as QL737.M47-QL737.M476. If you look at the authority for happiness (Q8) at http://id.loc.gov/authorities/subjects/sh85058807, there are three different numbers given, one of which is a range: BJ1480-BJ1486.5. These should be able to be recorded in Wikidata. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
- This continues not to work properly. Another example that does not work: http://id.loc.gov/authorities/classification/QE851-QE853. This represents a range of numbers. When I try to include QE851-QE853 as the value of this property in fossil fish (Q106112742), it only allows QE851. It should allow QE851-QE853, and link to http://id.loc.gov/authorities/classification/QE851-QE853. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 17:41, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
- As a further example: https://id.loc.gov/authorities/sh85038036 has two values
QC20.7.D55
andTA347.D5
. Senator2029 18:08, 17 May 2022 (UTC) - I have updated the regular expression to work with ranges. Hopefully it should work now or soon (I think the regexes for external IDs can take some time to update). Middle river exports (talk) 00:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Why is NAMED AS not allowed as qualifier?
[edit]Why is subject named as (P1810) not allowed as a qualifier? Often, the LC Classification is slightly different than the LCSH or Name Authority. Senator2029 19:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- I have updated the allowed qualifiers constraints to include this and some related generic qualifiers that are useful for identifiers. I also removed the to-be-deprecated "of" qualifier. I think this is one of those things where nobody got around to it rather than something purposefully omitted. Middle river exports (talk) 00:32, 11 September 2022 (UTC)