Re: [Wikisource-l] Strategic planning
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Federico Leva (Nemo)nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Andrea Zanni, 03/09/2009 19:17: We could develop an Extension that could use metadata standard as DublinCore (or others). Currently we have http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:OAIRepository installed. Does domebody know what it does? It is used for searching and mirroring, but it is password protected. It does provide dublin core, and I have documented what it provides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:OAIRepository There is also dublin core RDF functionality in the core product, but it is disabled on wikimedia. http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgEnableDublinCoreRdf http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/RDF_metadata e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hastings?action=dublincore Wikisource and Commons need the object (book, photo) to be described rather than the wiki page to be described. I have started a new proposal for this. https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/strategy/wiki/Proposal:Dublin_core -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Re: [Wikisource-l] [Foundation-l] Universal Library
John Vandenberg wrote: The underlying problem is that OL is approaching this from a traditional library perspective, and so is opening up slowly, and progress is slow and methodical. But they are not. They are starting from the Internet Archive (Brewster Kahle) perspective. Real archivists and librarians have complained that the Internet Archive is not enough of an archive, and OpenLibrary is not enough of a library. This is of course very similar to people complaining that Wikipedia is not enough of an encyclopedia. Both OpenLibrary and Wikipedia are primarily Internet projects. Perhaps the most interesting criticism of OpenLibrary was launched by Tim Spalding, founder of LibraryThing.com (another Internet project, but a commercial one, albeit with some volunteer vibes). He meant (my interpretation) that OpenLibrary asks a lot from libraries (a copy of their catalog database) but doesn't give much back, and giving something back would help OpenLibrary to win more allies among libraries, http://mail.archive.org/pipermail/ol-discuss/2009-August/000638.html The first website to appear on the domain www.openlibrary.org was an online viewer for books scanned by/for the Internet Archive, so if being able to read is a requirement for a library, then it did have that function from the start. Later another website appeared on demo.openlibrary.org, containing catalog records. The demo website is what you now find as openlibrary.org. It is as if the online viewer and the bibliographic database are two different projects, and the Internet Archive put the new project under the old domain. But the online viewer is still there, for the books that have been digitized. To some, it seems that OL will reach the holy grail first, The OpenLibrary has a head start. Any project started now will have to spend much time to catch up. Any good ideas that might go into a new project, could be used in the existing Openlibrary. For example, a new project might download the database dump from OpenLibrary and start to weed out the junk records. But that junk sorting could also take place inside OpenLibrary. Why not? If a new project goes to a library to ask for a copy of their catalog, they might get the question we already gave (or didn't give) that to OpenLibrary, so how is your project any different? And what should the new project answer to that? I want to encourage wikipedians and wikisourcerers to join the OpenLibrary project, just like you should also join OpenStreetMap and other good projects for free knowledge and information. Bring your experience. If you get tired of one project, as I do sometimes, work on another one for a while. OpenLibrary has author pages for 6.5 million author names. Some of these are junk duplicates that should be merged, but still there are quite a large number of authors there. These have a field for a Wikipedia URL, but only 1100 records have a value. Connecting author pages in OpenLibrary to Wikipedia biographies is just one way where we can do a lot, without needing to start a new project. -- Lars Aronsson (l...@aronsson.se) Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
Re: [Wikisource-l] [Foundation-l] Universal Library
On Fri, Sep 4, 2009 at 7:21 PM, Lars Aronssonl...@aronsson.se wrote: ... For example, a new project might download the database dump from OpenLibrary and start to weed out the junk records. But that junk sorting could also take place inside OpenLibrary. Why not? Because metadata without digital objects are next to useless. Worldcat already provides a directory of where physical books are held. A database of metadata with lots of duplicates and no means for the reader to fix them, and discuss them, is disrespectful. If a new project goes to a library to ask for a copy of their catalog, they might get the question we already gave (or didn't give) that to OpenLibrary, so how is your project any different? And what should the new project answer to that? See above. I dont see any value in going back to the libraries. Doing that would only end up with the same result that OpenLibrary has; it would be simpler to take the OpenLibrary dump. I want to encourage wikipedians and wikisourcerers to join the OpenLibrary project, just like you should also join OpenStreetMap and other good projects for free knowledge and information. Bring your experience. If you get tired of one project, as I do sometimes, work on another one for a while. Tell me _one_ thing that I can do at OpenLibrary that I can not do at Wikisource. OpenLibrary has author pages for 6.5 million author names. Some of these are junk duplicates that should be merged, but still there are quite a large number of authors there. These have a field for a Wikipedia URL, but only 1100 records have a value. Connecting author pages in OpenLibrary to Wikipedia biographies is just one way where we can do a lot, without needing to start a new project. _Most_ of them are duplicates. http://openlibrary.org/search?q=Jules+Gabriel+Verne I have an account at OpenLibrary, and I am responsible for 0.2% of the Wikipedia links :P I am not keen on becoming attached to a project that is littered with so much crap, especially when I am not given the tools required to fix the crap, nor do I have any say in whether more crap can be imported. http://openlibrary.org/user/jayvdb These two need to be merged. http://openlibrary.org/a/OL2296708A/Charles-C.-Nott http://openlibrary.org/a/OL2544127A/Charles-Cooper-Nott Both of them look terrible, because I have no control over the presentation of the pages. Dups, lack of sorting, etc. I haven't found the OpenLibrary coolaid; I'll stick with Wikisource, for good or ill. -- John Vandenberg ___ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
