Dear All,
[cross post to commons-l and wikimediaaustralia-l]
Picture Australia is interested in adding Commons photos to their service but has several technical issues they would like to resolve first. Can we help?
Picture Australia is an archive aggregation service run by the National Library of Australia and aggregates searches across many Australian institutions (such as the various state libraries, universities, government departments) and also Flickr. You can see the project at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html and you can see their other contributors at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/participants/index.html
This is a quote from the email written to me from PA: At the moment our main source of contemporary images is Flickr and we are interested in investigating other sources of contemporary images. There are a few issues with the Wikimedia Commons that we foresee: 1- the metadata quality is highly variable. With Flickr contributors are able to provide a fair bit of additional metadata about their images. Before pulling images in from Wikipedia we'd need the data to adhere to some basic standards. (see http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/metadata.html). 2- there are certainly a number of images that have been sourced from Picture Australia or our contributors. Pulling these in would create an issue with duplicate images and would likely confuse users if they were attempting to buy a copy. 3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how to ingest the data.
I would add a 4th concern, and I'm not sure if this is a big problem or easily fixed, is that most of the pictures on Commons are not relevant to PA. Would we be able to provide a feed of only the relevant categories?
All the best, - Liam Wyatt
Liam Wyatt wrote:
Dear All,
[cross post to commons-l and wikimediaaustralia-l]
Picture Australia is interested in adding Commons photos to their service but has several technical issues they would like to resolve first. Can we help?
Picture Australia is an archive aggregation service run by the National Library of Australia and aggregates searches across many Australian institutions (such as the various state libraries, universities, government departments) and also Flickr. You can see the project at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html and you can see their other contributors at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/participants/index.html
Great!
This is a quote from the email written to me from PA: At the moment our main source of contemporary images is Flickr and we are interested in investigating other sources of contemporary images. There are a few issues with the Wikimedia Commons that we foresee: 1- the metadata quality is highly variable. With Flickr contributors are able to provide a fair bit of additional metadata about their images. Before pulling images in from Wikipedia we'd need the data to adhere to some basic standards. (see http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/metadata.html).
That would mean adding Dublin Core metadata. A good target by itself. Perhaps a task for a toolserver app?
2- there are certainly a number of images that have been sourced from Picture Australia or our contributors. Pulling these in would create an issue with duplicate images and would likely confuse users if they were attempting to buy a copy.
They shouldn't have problems in keeping a hash of each image they store to avoid duplicates. We can't guess
3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how to ingest the data.
Use the API? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?format=xml&action=query&gener...
I would add a 4th concern, and I'm not sure if this is a big problem or easily fixed, is that most of the pictures on Commons are not relevant to PA. Would we be able to provide a feed of only the relevant categories?
All the best,
- Liam Wyatt
We could, but we shouldn't guess what they really want.
My concern: What about images we have to delete? Does it support easy removing from their index?
On 2/3/09, Platonides Platonides@gmail.com wrote:
My concern: What about images we have to delete? Does it support easy removing from their index?
I believe this is not a problem as they refresh their database on a regular basis. Enough new items get added, moved, changed and removed amongst all of their other participants that our changes should not be a problem for their tech.
-Liam
_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list Commons-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
Platonides schrieb:
Liam Wyatt wrote:
Dear All,
[cross post to commons-l and wikimediaaustralia-l]
Picture Australia is interested in adding Commons photos to their service but has several technical issues they would like to resolve first. Can we help?
Picture Australia is an archive aggregation service run by the National Library of Australia and aggregates searches across many Australian institutions (such as the various state libraries, universities, government departments) and also Flickr. You can see the project at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html and you can see their other contributors at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/participants/index.html
Great!
This is a quote from the email written to me from PA: At the moment our main source of contemporary images is Flickr and we are interested in investigating other sources of contemporary images. There are a few issues with the Wikimedia Commons that we foresee: 1- the metadata quality is highly variable. With Flickr contributors are able to provide a fair bit of additional metadata about their images. Before pulling images in from Wikipedia we'd need the data to adhere to some basic standards. (see http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/metadata.html).
That would mean adding Dublin Core metadata. A good target by itself. Perhaps a task for a toolserver app?
We should *really* push for decent metadata support in mediawiki. An appropriate extension already exists, see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RDF. That extension would make it easy to generate RDF (with Dublin Core, Creative Commons and other voicabularies) for each image (and any other page).
We should request that extension as a community. If it's not quite ready for prime time, I'm sure it can be made ready.
2- there are certainly a number of images that have been sourced from Picture Australia or our contributors. Pulling these in would create an issue with duplicate images and would likely confuse users if they were attempting to buy a copy.
They shouldn't have problems in keeping a hash of each image they store to avoid duplicates. We can't guess
Right - hashes are important. And images sourced from PA should have that info in their metadata, and are thus easily identified.
3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how to ingest the data.
Use the API? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?format=xml&action=query&gener...
We DO have an OAI interface: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_update_feed_service.
-- daniel
2009/2/3 Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de:
We should *really* push for decent metadata support in mediawiki. An appropriate extension already exists, see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RDF. That extension would make it easy to generate RDF (with Dublin Core, Creative Commons and other voicabularies) for each image (and any other page).
We should request that extension as a community. If it's not quite ready for prime time, I'm sure it can be made ready.
So, what should we do, exactly? File a bug report and pile-on with comments/votes? Hold an on-wiki vote? Is there some other way of demonstrating that we consider it important?
3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how to ingest the data.
Use the API? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?format=xml&action=query&gener...
It's not really that simple, is it?
Here is one imageinfo "comment":
{{BotMoveToCommons|en.wikipedia}} {{Information |Description={{en|ME}} |Source=Transferred from [http://en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia]; transferred to Commons by [[User:Fale]] using [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php CommonsHelper].<br/
(yes, it ends in malformed html!)
Pretty obvious that a middle layer of "community API" is required, isn't it?
We DO have an OAI interface: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_update_feed_service.
"A new release of the OAI client for MediaWiki 1.7, offering best compatibility with current Wikipedia data rendering, is scheduled for late July 2006." Can't wait!!
Is "near-real-time" implicit in OAI? If not, and if OAI is a common standard amongst cultural institutions etc, then doesn't it make more sense to have a widely-available freely accessible OAI interface?
cheers Brianna
Brianna Laugher schrieb:
2009/2/3 Daniel Kinzler daniel@brightbyte.de:
We should *really* push for decent metadata support in mediawiki. An appropriate extension already exists, see http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:RDF. That extension would make it easy to generate RDF (with Dublin Core, Creative Commons and other voicabularies) for each image (and any other page).
We should request that extension as a community. If it's not quite ready for prime time, I'm sure it can be made ready.
So, what should we do, exactly? File a bug report and pile-on with comments/votes? Hold an on-wiki vote? Is there some other way of demonstrating that we consider it important?
The process for enabling an extension is: 1) have a community discussion 2) document "consensus" over wanting it 3) make a feature request on bugzilla, pointing to the conssensus 4) sever admins look at the extension 5) server admins complain about what needs to be fixed. 6) someone fixes it 7) rinse, repeat. 8) depending on how big the change it, it may go live on test.wikipedia.org first. Probably not needed here. 9) depending on how big the change is, it may take a while to get enabled. This one should be quick, I think.
3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how to ingest the data.
Use the API? http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?format=xml&action=query&gener...
It's not really that simple, is it?
Here is one imageinfo "comment":
{{BotMoveToCommons|en.wikipedia}} {{Information |Description={{en|ME}} |Source=Transferred from [http://en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia]; transferred to Commons by [[User:Fale]] using [http://tools.wikimedia.de/~magnus/commonshelper.php CommonsHelper].<br/
(yes, it ends in malformed html!)
Pretty obvious that a middle layer of "community API" is required, isn't it?
Or propert suppoer for storing property/value pairs in mediawiki. didn't we just have that discussion a few days ago?
We DO have an OAI interface: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_update_feed_service.
"A new release of the OAI client for MediaWiki 1.7, offering best compatibility with current Wikipedia data rendering, is scheduled for late July 2006." Can't wait!!
I think it exists, the page just didn't get updated. But it's relevant only of you want tu use mediawiki as a *client* to the OAI stream. It's not relevant if you just want to fetch changes. That interface exists.
Is "near-real-time" implicit in OAI? If not, and if OAI is a common standard amongst cultural institutions etc, then doesn't it make more sense to have a widely-available freely accessible OAI interface?
This is mostly used by search engines, and i think the foundation likes them to pay. Researches usually get free access. If the OAI stream should be opened up to all is something that would need to be discussed with the foundation.
-- daniel