I think the place for all data about an image should be Wikidata. It will be trivial to update a Wikidata item with an image when that image becomes available on Commons. Until that time, the item can point to a catalog's online or offline entry where the image can be viewed. I am thinking for example of a Salvador Dali work that cannot be included on Wikipedia due to copyright constraints. In this case the catalog entry at least points the user in a useful direction
On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 7:33 PM, James Heald <j.he...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: > One case that particularly comes to mind is where we have multiple > different scans of the same work -- eg we have multiple (incomplete) sets > of the early 1800s colour engravings from Ackermann's Microcosm of London, > or Pyne's Royal Palaces, or Audubon's Birds of America etc. > > It seems a shame not to be able to abstract the duplicated information > between different scans -- eg the creatorship, the publication history, the > topic list of items depicted -- given that they are versions of the same > work. > > However, if the different scans have been made independently, there is no > chain of derivation between them. And - probably - the individual > engravings would not pass WD notability, so would not have separate items, > though the book they were collected in probably would. > > So it doesn't seem that there would be an item on which to store the data > that would be common between the different versions of the image. > > (Similarly, multiple reproductions of the same vintage photograph, etc). > > Perhaps there might be a case for CommonsData items for works that belong > to a sequence, where the sequence has an item on Wikidata? > > Or perhaps they should just have items on Wikidata? > > -- James. > > > On 10/10/2014 17:08, Gergo Tisza wrote: > >> Thanks for the pointers, James! I'll try to digest them. >> >> Our thoughts on the issue of representing relationships between works are >> not fully formed yet, but the current idea is loosely that >> * if the original work has a Wikidata item (according to whatever >> notability guidelines the community prefers), link to that >> * otherwise if it is a Commons image, link to the local data item of that >> image >> * otherwise representing the relationships in full detail is probably not >> that important, so it's fine to just add the authors of the originals as >> contributors to the CommonsData entry with some generic role such as >> "author of a source work", without trying to represent the accurate >> relationship between them. >> >> So, if there is a chain of "derivative of" relationships between works >> which have Wikidata or CommonsData items, we can walk the chain upon >> extraction and collect the authors. Where the theoretical chain extends >> outside Wikidata+CommonsData, the actual (as stored in Wikibase) chain >> would have author information from the outlying nodes "squashed" into the >> edge nodes. >> >> On Mon, Oct 6, 2014 at 11:08 AM, James Heald <j.he...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> Gergo, >>> >>> > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
