I would like to add a couple of points and questions as a small user of the tool with limited competences, which I hope are pertinent to this discussion. I used GWT once and although with some difficulties I am very happy with the feedback and support I received and with the result at the end. The learning curve and the untold requirement (=know somebody) are what needs to be smoothed down urgently I believe.

Usability: I agree with Fć that some work on the interface would be very helpful and if this can also allow a bit more freedom in terms of templates, licenses (I had to enter the template for that, but perhaps there are ways in which a more generic statement can be transformed in the proper template or this can be picked from a list and eventually enriched), free descriptive text, etc. even better. I would add some workflow steps as those of the upload wizard to help out new users. When I did my upload my xml file after the testing phase in beta ended up being full of wiki text which I am not sure is what we want to do and most people can do.

Documentation: Some parts of the process need also to be clarified in the description of the tool, so that people know that empty elements are a problem for the tool before they figure out, and perhaps get to know about the log and so on. (these I think are all known issues, if not I can expand my list)

GLAM specific: Another important aspect would be to tailor this to GLAMs in terms of facilitating anything which concern templates: could there be a ready list of mappings from major documentation standards in use (LIDO, CIDOC CRM, etc.)? can files different from a flat xml be handled? most people in the GLAM community, in my opinion, will just be put of by reading "xml". is this what the mash and shape would enable people to do? take a file from their computer whichever it is and make the metadata into an xml file for the GWT without them noticing anything? than I put my +1 on that most certainly. Also: can more template be prepared and put in the tool for the mapping? perhaps one for each typology of object in europeana? can they be customizable from the tool itself? what about GLAMs which do not have their collections digitized or online? I understand that Commons is not their online repository, but there are a series of smaller institutions which could do amazing things if empowered by the tool to get their contents out there. this possibility for smaller and medium GLAMs would be in my opinion what enlarges the scope of the technical development enough to make it worth it. and it is a real need, because bigger institution will anyway have somebody to write a bot for them if they want to upload files to Commons, and it is going to be easier perhaps then using the GWT; small and medium GLAMs won't have any one. In this respect something about outreach to these institutions should be done, and this might happen via Europeana and the Chapters together.

API/structured Data: isn't it true that the API will be there as soon as wikibase is used by Commons? is there any use in building one then? I think support to this side of things would be more important in the direction suggested by James Heald earlier on, so, if I well understood, towards making sure that the depth of grouping and organization is enough and not just a minimum (wikidata needs to keep a minimum because of what it is but I also think that that is not the logic in Commons) and that GLAM find their appropriate space there and do not feel constrained by this or that technical or design limit. If then the API communication is in place bidirectionally, and can possibly keep up with updates which might come from Commons or from Europeana Content providers, that would be even better. Then as a GWT user I would like to see what happens to the contents I uploaded in both Commons and Europeana, perhaps be informed about conflicting changes to be able to moderate where possible, and off course get back the data from one of the two.

Europeana: It strikes me that Europeana thinks about this tool as somehow out of scope I have to say. The strategic plan says "we transform the world with culture", not "we transform europe with culture". I do not see the problem if something initially developed for institutions in the Europeana network and on their specific needs as test cases is then useful for GLAMs outside Europe. On the contrary I think it would fully fulfill our mission under many respects, let alone the key words of the strategy: Mutual, Usable, Reliable...

Dear glamtools list,
TL;DR version:
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.

Full version:
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: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2014-October/075203.html

From a personal perspective, as the guy who was pushing for the funding/creation 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.

Timing difficulties...
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 re-scoping...

The request...
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 application, achievable 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 requirements 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 compliant file.
- Supporting the development of the Structured Data project (somehow!)

Suggestions welcome!
-Liam

wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata

--
wittylama.com
Peace, love & metadata
_______________________________________________
Glamtools mailing list
Glamtools@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/glamtools