Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

display concordances in addendum #527

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
Aug 17, 2021
Merged

display concordances in addendum #527

merged 5 commits into from
Aug 17, 2021

Conversation

missinglink
Copy link
Member

@missinglink missinglink commented Aug 16, 2021

display concordances in addendum where available.

resolves #526

@missinglink
Copy link
Member Author

Looks good:

Screenshot 2021-08-17 at 09 34 27

Other addendum fields are prefixed with the source, I felt like it didn't really make sense this time since concordances represent the interoperability of disparate sources 🤷

Of course this means we're adopting the whosonfirst key schema, which I think is fine.

Screenshot 2021-08-17 at 09 34 31

@missinglink
Copy link
Member Author

missinglink commented Aug 17, 2021

I've added a couple more commits to map fields outside wof:concordances where is makes sense, this increases the number of IDs available:

Screenshot 2021-08-17 at 10 19 10

related: whosonfirst-data/whosonfirst-data#1956

@missinglink
Copy link
Member Author

Fix handling of underscore vs colon delimiters:

Screenshot 2021-08-17 at 10 46 18

@missinglink missinglink merged commit 52c577f into master Aug 17, 2021
@missinglink missinglink deleted the concordances-addendum branch August 17, 2021 08:47
@orangejulius
Copy link
Member

Nice, this will actually be very good to have.

If I were to make one change it would be for us to build a mapping of the short name to a longer name, so that it would be something like this instead:

{
  "concordances": {
    "geoplanet_id": 667027,
    "wikidata_id": "Q64",
    "geonames_id": 6547384,
    "quattroshapes_id": 630199
  }
}

Otherwise we will likely have to do some work to document the possible keys everywhere, as I doubt most people will know what they mean. I was actually surprised to see in the WOF schema you pasted that there's only 7 options, so at least this won't be too much work.

I don't think it's too late to make this change if you also agree with it :)

@missinglink
Copy link
Member Author

Yeah I considered doing that but I didn't want to get into defining naming conventions 😆
Agreed that it's unlikely that users will be able to understand the acronyms.

I'm not really sure I understand which concordances are available myself!
Some ones not listed above are qs_pg:id which I guess would be quattroshapes_points_gazetteer_id and wd:page, I'm not sure which other ones there are so decided to simply adopt the WOF schema for now.

@missinglink
Copy link
Member Author

Eventually I would like to see all the datasets outputting the same keys:

Screenshot 2021-08-17 at 14 47 44

@missinglink
Copy link
Member Author

It's never too late, but I think it would pay to define that schema up-front, the addendum isn't a public API per-se so it can evolve over time.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

return geonames concordances in addendum
2 participants