Hoi,
I know the categories in Commons exist. I also know that you do not have to
add categories when an image is uploaded. Many people do not consider the
categories because they are just there and are not easy nor obvious without
a long study.
They are there and they evolve. When the "community" finds that they are no
longer useful, there will be others who still want to work on it. They can,
it is a harmless occupation. Why would we consider removing category
structures as long as someone cares about them ??
Thanks,
GerardM
On 18 August 2014 23:48, James Heald <[email protected]> wrote:
> Whilst that may be so, please nobody suggest dismantling any categories on
> Commons, unless and until Commons specifically asks for it.
>
> As I learnt today, some on Commons are touchy enough just about the *idea*
> of Commons Wikibase, never mind anything being stored on it.
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%
> 27_noticeboard#d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Structured_Data_for_Commons
>
> Probably I was being over-facetious with my selection of the words
> "Midsummer Morning" in my example. (But then it wasn't me that assigned
> Q42).
>
> The serious point is that I do believe there will be valuable-to-identify
> sets and subsets that may not be captured just by properties (unless the
> property is "belongs to this particular set")
>
> So it wasn't just pictures taken from *any* cellphone *any* midsummer
> morning I was looking to identify, but pictures from one particular
> cellphone one particular midsummer morning, that happened to make a set.
>
> Similarly I think it is possible to imagine other useful sets that
> wouldn't be necessarily be identified by a property that pointed to
> something with a particular Q-number; nor even a combination of such
> properties.
>
> -- James
>
>
>
> On 18/08/2014 18:53, Magnus Manske wrote:
>
>> If I may chime in: Most, if not all, of the (overly specific) categories
>> on
>> Commons can be expressed by statements. So, storing the data/time from
>> EXIF
>> or otherwise would allow for a "midsummer morning" query. Adding EXIF
>> camera model to the file data item would allow to query for cellphones (it
>> would probably reference the cellphone model item on Wikidata, which in
>> turn is an instance of cell phone).
>>
>> This can be done with live queries a la WDQ, or stored procedures a la
>> "complex queries" which are planned for Wikidata, as a click-on category
>> replacement, if such a thing is desired.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Magnus
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 3:22 PM, James Heald <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Thanks Lydia!
>>>
>>> Something that occurs to me is that one may well want to include Commons
>>> categories in such a database, not just files, which presumably might be
>>> stored on a page like
>>>
>>> Info:Category:Insert random Commons category intersection here
>>>
>>> so that one could then ask whether a file belongs to such a category or
>>> not, and the data would all be in the database.
>>>
>>>
>>> Such categories (or sets) may well not be Wikidata notable, for example:
>>>
>>> Category:Pictures I took on my cellphone one midsummer morning
>>>
>>> so we cannot assume they have Q-numbers.
>>>
>>>
>>> But it would be nice if we could describe such properties using the
>>> existing Wikidata syntax, ie via a property Pxyz = "belongs to set", and
>>> then an item number for the set it belonged to.
>>>
>>> Since the items wouldn't be on Wikidata, it would be useful if they had a
>>> different namespace, eg C nnnnnn
>>>
>>> Of course some of the categories would be on Wikidata, so for such
>>> categories one would want to create a tie between the item on Commons
>>> Wikibase and the item on Wikidata,
>>>
>>> C nnnnn <--> Q mmmmm
>>>
>>> Sorry if I'm being premature and getting ahead of things, but this is the
>>> sort of thing I had in the back of my mind.
>>>
>>>
>>> On the other hand I can quite see if, to start with, you want only to
>>> have
>>> files as items on Commons WikiBase (CWB ?). But even then, it's quite
>>> nice to have an Wikidata-style identifier syntax for talking about them,
>>> eg C nnnnn again.
>>>
>>>
>>> (I'm not particularly hung up about the "C" -- it could be anything. But
>>> "F" for file is perhaps potentially too restrictive for future
>>> development).
>>>
>>> Just typing out of the top of my head here,
>>>
>>> Best,
>>>
>>> James.
>>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikidata-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
