So great! Lydia, our approach in the digitization program will be really benefited with this.
here are more examples: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uploaded_via_Campaign:AAL (all the books in this category have a complete description, some of them in wikidata also) And from other donation we have: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil e:Playa_de_Scheveningen_-_Adriaen_van_de_Velde.jpg (work in progress to have the 800 images like that one) Thanks :) El jue, 28-07-2016 a las 20:13 +0200, Lydia Pintscher escribió: > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Brill Lyle <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > This is a great development. Not sure if this is helpful to discuss here or > > > > if it is preferrable on the Structured data page? Please advise and I will > > copy info there. > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Structured_data > > > > > > In May 2015, Wikimedia NYC supported an editathon with the Guggenheim here > > > > in NYC where the Guggenheim donated 100 images to Wikimedia Commons as part > > of a GLAM initiative. > > Images: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Guggenheim_Museum_Ma y_2015#Gallery > > > > > > Pharos added some really great metadata to these image pages, which might be > > > > helpful as a guide for what might be the most deluxe type of Commons page > > info breakout -- at least it seems pretty deluxe that to me. :-) > > > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GUGG_Dynamism_of_a_Speeding _Horse_%2B_Houses.jpg > > Thanks. Stuff like that is useful to have as examples. > > > > > As far as discoverability goes, I think that the use of categories on > > > > Commons is mission critical. I see this requested feature is noted on this > > > > project page. Personally, I don't love the flatness of the category system > > > > on Commons (or Wikipedia actually) because it's not especially faceted, but > > > > I think that this "legacy" issue should be very clearly integrated as this > > > > project develops.There are so many images available on Commons but finding > > > > them is a problem. The file name is often not descriptive enough, and the > > > > metadata might be incomplete or poor. So integration with Wikidata is key, > > > > but again, discoverability is even more important. Otherwise it's just > > unlabeled jars on the wall. > > > > > > And to be a total pain, have existing library resources, like the A&A > > > > Thesaurus from the Getty, been consulted to provide controlled vocabularies > > and possible copy catalog potential? > > Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus: > > http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/ > > example: http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300021368 > > > > I'm not a working librarian but I think there are multiple semantic > > > > resources for artwork, especially. I remember this one from grad school.... > > We will be using Wikidata's vocabulary (items and properties) as that > has a lot of advantages here. However a lot of that is already > connected to A&A Thesaurus and others. So we're pretty flexible there > for different usecases. > > > Cheers > Lydia > -- Mauricio Vidal Genta Coordinador del proyecto de digitalización A. C. Wikimedia Argentina
_______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
