I was thinking about items vs properties and Commons. I am not sure a "F" entity is necessary. In theory, each file on Commons can be linked to another one, and each item on WikiData can be linked to another one, but those links do not necessarily need to interconnect with Commons. If a Commons file is not the "best promoted image" of a certain WikiData item, then in my mind it does not need to be in WikiData.
Here is an example of what I mean: This is an image of an engraving of Dirk van Hoogstraten: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dirk_van_hoogstraten_by_arnold_houbraken.JPG He has a WikiData (person) item that could link to that image here: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5280895 The image file is derived from this file: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schouburg_I_Plate_I_Leonard_Bramer_-_Dirk_van_Hoogstraten_-_Salomon_de_Bray.jpg which is a page from a 3-volume book about artists that has a WikiData (book) item (that could use the titlepage of the first volume as linked image). The picture of Hoogstraten on that page was also used later by another engraver in a later book about artists: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schouburg_I_Plate_I_Leonard_Bramer_-_Dirk_van_Hoogstraten_-_Salomon_de_Bray.jpg This second book also has a Wikidata (book) item, and the authors of both books have WikiData (person) items, and so do the engravers of the original engravings. If the original drawing of Dirk Hoogstraten ever comes to light, then that image could be promoted to "best image of Dirk Hoogstraten", and this one can remain on commons, but does not need to be linked to WikiData, or do you think there is a need for this file to have its own "F" status in WikiData? 2013/6/21, David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com>: > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Denny Vrandečić < > denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote: > >> I agree that the different projects have different requirements. But I >> think we should strive for a small number of "Wikidatas" - you could have >> made the same argument for Commons, after all. >> > > The two projects that might need it most are Wikivoyage (hotel/restaurant > listings) and Wikiquote (semantic quotes), though in the end they could be > included in Wikidata with different entity types. > Wikisource is aligned with the existence of source items in Wikidata, so > other than having a "S" namespace for sources (or not) and adapting the > extension to work in Wikisource, there is not much need of development from > the Wikidata side. See more here: > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikisource > > >> Right now, I think there is a need for Commons to have better support for >> data - we are working on a proposal text for that - and Wiktionary - as >> it >> is really a different system - needs some special treatments - we have >> just >> send a proposal text for that. >> > > The Wiktionary proposal is a great start. I'm excited about the Commons > proposal. It would be fabulous to have an "F" entity type for files :) > > (You can always go further and say "but it would be better if we supported >> Wikibooks with structured data about the books and its chapters" etc., >> but >> at some point you need to weigh implementation effort and cost and the >> expected benefit) >> >> > Wikibooks (user-generated text-books) is a special case, a bit different > from Wikisource (digital versions of existing sources). > However both can be treated in a similar way. I agree that the potential > benefit of linking chapters wouldn't be that high. > > Cheers, > Micru > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
