Hi Liam,
Specifically in relation to these two points:
- 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 requirements for usage and reuse statistics for GLAM content https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Report_on_requirements_for_usage_and...
- Supporting the development of the Structured Data project (somehow!)
I think something that would be useful (and urgent) would be looking quite hard at what's going to be needed to extract data from the new Structured Data system into EDM.
In particular, it would be good to know that metadata will be able to be migrated
Museum -> Commons Structured Data -> EDM
with no more loss than would be entailed by going
Museum -> EDM
Looking at first drafts of the Structured Data proposals, I am very concerned that the proposed structure may not allow deep enough grouping of related properties -- eg grouping together artist/contribution/date/licence information on each stage of contribution for an image that may be the result of multiple successive stages of contribution.
(eg original work by painter -> engraving by sketcher and artist -> scan by museum team : each of these stages have distinct information which ought to be properly grouped.)
The problem is that the current item/property/qualifier hierarchy used on Wikidata may be one step too shallow to permit this kind of grouping for image metadata for a particular file.
There may be more gotchas that I'm not aware of, because I don't yet know enough about EDM.
So more running of a rule over the Structured Data plans to make sure that they are compatible with EDM would be timely, I think, to make sure that the pathway will be there to export to EDM without loss.
Probably it would also be useful to look over similar evolving Structured Data proposals for category-type data, to ensure they can export to standards like IIIF.
-- James.