I have launched an upload of 3000 images using the GWToolset − actually
two, one yesterday night with the first 1200 files, another one this
morning with the 3K files minus the 100 uploaded in the night
Here are the logs :
(batches are dated in the summary)
* uploads get stalled. Nothing has happened in the past hour, even though
the expected time laps between is around 5 minutes. I had assumed yesterday
job had crashed because of too many errors (bad source) but today’s one is
stalled too and...
* ...uploads may resume. My batch of yesterday was blocked in the night ;
before resuming today.
Is this normal behaviour? Anything I can do to make it easier for the
Dear glamtools list,
In the light of the 2015 business plan, the scope of Europeana's grant
application (and involvement in future development) of the GLAMwikiToolset
needs to be scaled back to things that have a more direct/obvious
relationship to Europeana's mission. I would like your suggestions for what
those elements should be.
As the practitioners of the GLAMwikiToolset, the people who know the
system, its history/purpose, its abilities and its flaws the best, I
thought it important to relay to you directly a message that I delivered to
the Wikimedia-l mailing list over the weekend.
*The background story...*
On that mailing list (for those who are not subscribed to it) there has
been a long thread instigated by Erik Moeller on the topic of how the WMF
would like to encourage Chapters to take up responsibility for GLAM-related
software/tooling. Obviously the GWT and Europeana's involvement came up in
this context and I've been actively engaged in the discussion.
On Friday was the Europeana AGM in Madrid where the annual plan was
publicly discussed. It just so happened that at the exact time the keynote
presentation about the 2015 Business Plan was happening, the Wikimedia-l
thread renewed, with specific discussion of Europeana's planned commitment
to the GWT next year. Incredibly precise timing!
*The change of direction...*
Of course, what no one knew was that within the context of this Europeana
planning, I have been given specific instructions from senior management
that a new round of intensive development on a content-agnostic, integrated
mass-upload system for Wikimedia Commons is not within the scope of the
mission of Europeana. Europeana is, after-all, an organisation focused on
European digital cultural heritage but the GWT is a tool that can be used
by anyone, from anywhere, for any kind of content that is acceptable to
Wikimedia Commons. Further development of the infrastructure of the GWT
work would increasingly be focused on areas that are further and further
from the mission of Europeana. Europeana DOES wish to continue to develop
the GWT in ways that directly support the mission of the organisation, but
it has decided NOT to attempt to build the current tool into an
all-singing-all-dancing fully integrated system for Commons. It's not about
the cost specifically (though potential for 'scope creep' and therefore for
budget overrun would have been very probable), but about being focused on
the mission of the organisation.
This what I wrote publicly on Friday:
>From a personal perspective, as the guy who was pushing for the
of the magical, easy, beautiful mass-upload system since... I forget how
long ago now... I would love to see investment (by anyone), but in my
professional perspective I understand the need for Europeana to clearly
define the scope of its activities.
I would have liked to have this discussion more slowly and deliberatively
but in the context of the AGM and the Wikimedia-l conversation happening,
my boss and I agreed that it was important to be clear on the public record
as quickly as possible so as not to have any false expectations (or, as few
as possible!). I would have preferred to have shared this here first
obviously but things don't always work out neatly like that. Apologies.
Two other aspects of things that, as a result of this change, didn't work
out neatly timing-wise is that we are in the middle of both:
a) the EuropeanaTask Force to write a recommended strategy for Europeana's
relationship to Wikimedia in accordance with the 2015-2020 strategic plan.
b) writing the grant application to the WikimediaFoundation for funding
future development of the GWT itself.
The first point (the Task Force) is a strategic discussion and so,
technically, is a higher-level of planning than the specific software
development plans for the GWT. However, in reality, what Europeana invests
in the GWT does obviously have implications for the longer-term strategy.
Ideally report from the Task Force would be submitted *first *and the
decision on the scope investment in the GWT would come as a result of it,
but the timing of the annual planning precluded that.
The second point (the grant application) means a bit of re-writing and
Therefore, I would like your advise and suggestions as to what you, the
practitioners of the GWT, believe to be the elements which *should *be
included in the newly-rewritten WMF grant application, given this specific
clarification from Europeana. Given that:
- we know that there are many things which we could do to improve the GWT
- we know that Europeana will only develop things that have specific
relevance to European digital cultural heritage
- we know that the WMF will not approve an application for funding
technical development if its value is limited to only a small group
We need to identify the aspects of the GWT that will have the most impact
if improved but are also: *specific *to be listed in the grant
*within the time/money/people resources available*, relevant *to the needs
of Europeana and the WMF (think SMART criteria
I've got a few points obviously, but I'd very much appreciate if you could
add to this list:
- Usability improvements for the current workflow to ensure that the
process as it currently stands is clearly explained within the system
(including some user testing)
- Documentation completion/improvements (including screencasts and linking
the steps of the process to the relevant parts of the documentation)
- Building a report on the needs of GLAMs to be able to export their data
back out of commons (the equivalent of this Europeana-sponsored report into
for usage and reuse statistics for GLAM content
- Building the API that will easily push content already in Europeana (i.e.
Is using the EDM - Europeana data model) to easily export to a GWT
- Supporting the development of the Structured Data project (somehow!)
Peace, love & metadata
Peace, love & metadata
does anyone know why uploads from Flickr static does not work anymore? When
I try this, GWToolset says :Copy uploads are not available from this domain.
Ari Häyrinen, WMFI
Sent from my Debian.