Hello everyone!

I'm quite a newcomer here but since I'm working with the GWToolset uploads currently, I thought I could say something here.

I think that "mash and shape" are the keywords here. I have understood that the reason for uploading content to commons is to have it linked. Although, this can be partly done automatically, there a lot of situations that must be handled by hand.

I see two options:

1. Source (like Europeana) -> "mash and shape" -> outputs XML for GWToolset -> upload to Commons
                             (wikitalisation)

2. Source (like Europeana) -> outputs XML for GWToolset -> "mash and shape" -> upload to Commons
                                                         (wikitalisation)


Personally I like the option 1 because it is more flexible. I can develop "mash and shape" tools as I please. This is what I'm doing right now but with Flickr. I'm developing a simple tool for the Flickr materials of Finnish GLAMs that allows editing metadata and then output the XML for the GWToolset.

In the option 2, I loose that control. Of course, these options does not necessarily exclude each other.

My point is that "mash and shape" is probably different for Europeana compared to some other data source (like Flickr or some museum database for example). Europeana could set best practices for their "mash and shape" tool. And if someone is not happy with it, then they can freely develop external tool.

I'm not sure if this was helpful at all. I really like the way GWToolset works and I'm very interest about it's future.

Best regards,
Ari Häyrinen
WMFI

ps. More about our Flickr and Commons thing in today's GLAMout :)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/GLAMout/2014/November

Sent from my Debian.
http://www.opendimension.org/

2014-11-04 13:25 GMT+02:00 James Heald <j.heald@ucl.ac.uk>:

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_reuse_statistics_for_GLAM_content.pdf>

- 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.

_______________________________________________
Glamtools mailing list
Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools