Hello everyone!
I'm quite a newcomer here but since I'm working with the GWToolset uploads
currently, I thought I could say something here.
I think that "mash and shape" are the keywords here. I have understood that
the reason for uploading content to commons is to have it linked. Although,
this can be partly done automatically, there a lot of situations that must
be handled by hand.
I see two options:
1. Source (like Europeana) -> "mash and shape" -> outputs XML for GWToolset
-> upload to Commons
(wikitalisation)
2. Source (like Europeana) -> outputs XML for GWToolset -> "mash and shape"
-> upload to Commons
(wikitalisation)
Personally I like the option 1 because it is more flexible. I can develop
"mash and shape" tools as I please. This is what I'm doing right now but
with Flickr. I'm developing a simple tool for the Flickr materials of
Finnish GLAMs that allows editing metadata and then output the XML for the
GWToolset.
In the option 2, I loose that control. Of course, these options does not
necessarily exclude each other.
My point is that "mash and shape" is probably different for Europeana
compared to some other data source (like Flickr or some museum database for
example). Europeana could set best practices for their "mash and shape"
tool. And if someone is not happy with it, then they can freely develop
external tool.
I'm not sure if this was helpful at all. I really like the way GWToolset
works and I'm very interest about it's future.
Best regards,
Ari Häyrinen
WMFI
ps. More about our Flickr and Commons thing in today's GLAMout :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GLAMout/2014/November
Sent from my Debian.
http://www.opendimension.org/
2014-11-04 13:25 GMT+02:00 James Heald <[email protected]>:
> Hi Liam,
>
> Specifically in relation to these two points:
>
> - Building a report on the needs of GLAMs to be able to export their data
>> back out of commons (the equivalent of this Europeana-sponsored report
>> into
>> requirements for usage and reuse statistics for GLAM content
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Report_on_
>> requirements_for_usage_and_reuse_statistics_for_GLAM_content.pdf>
>>
>> - Supporting the development of the Structured Data project (somehow!)
>>
>
> I think something that would be useful (and urgent) would be looking quite
> hard at what's going to be needed to extract data from the new Structured
> Data system into EDM.
>
> In particular, it would be good to know that metadata will be able to be
> migrated
>
> Museum -> Commons Structured Data -> EDM
>
> with no more loss than would be entailed by going
>
> Museum -> EDM
>
>
> Looking at first drafts of the Structured Data proposals, I am very
> concerned that the proposed structure may not allow deep enough grouping of
> related properties -- eg grouping together artist/contribution/date/licence
> information on each stage of contribution for an image that may be the
> result of multiple successive stages of contribution.
>
> (eg original work by painter -> engraving by sketcher and artist -> scan
> by museum team : each of these stages have distinct information which ought
> to be properly grouped.)
>
> The problem is that the current item/property/qualifier hierarchy used on
> Wikidata may be one step too shallow to permit this kind of grouping for
> image metadata for a particular file.
>
>
> There may be more gotchas that I'm not aware of, because I don't yet know
> enough about EDM.
>
>
> So more running of a rule over the Structured Data plans to make sure that
> they are compatible with EDM would be timely, I think, to make sure that
> the pathway will be there to export to EDM without loss.
>
>
> Probably it would also be useful to look over similar evolving Structured
> Data proposals for category-type data, to ensure they can export to
> standards like IIIF.
>
>
> -- James.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Glamtools mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
>
_______________________________________________
Glamtools mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools
