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.