The attributes below match better Commons Book template [1] than commons Artwork template [2]. One difference is that Book template is a better fit for non- unique objects as it is lacking "Current location" and "Accession number" fields essential for Artwork.
Here are the mappings to current templates:
Zotero label
CSL fieldname
MapWarper
template:Book
template:Artwork
Scale
none
scale
-> description
-> description
Language
none
language
Short Title
none
-> title
-> title
Library Catalog
none
Rights
none
permission
permission
ISBN
ISBN
ISBN
URL
URL
Source / Bibliographic Ref URL
source
source
Abstract
abstract
-> description
-> description
Accessed
accessed
Archive
archive
current location (institution)
Loc. in Archive
archive_location
current location(location)
Call Number
call-number
Call Number
Accession number
Series Title
collection-title
Series Title
Edition
edition
Edition
Place
event-place and publisher-place
Place of Publication
Place of publication (City)
Type
genre
object type
Date
issued
Published Date
Date
date
Extra
note
notes
Publisher
publisher
Publisher
Publisher
Title
title
title
title
title
description
description
description
tags
subject area
-> description
-> description
Metadata Unique iD
Author
author
artist
Date Depicted
->date
->date
Reprint Date
->date
->date
Metadata Projection
-> description
-> description
Metadata Location: lat, lon
template:Object location
template:Object location
I used "->field" symbol for cases where few external fields can be mapped to one template field.
Commons templates can be expanded a little bit in case of individual files with help of Template:Information_field [3]. But that makes hard to read wikicode. So I see 2 options here:
1) Expand current commons templates. Several times in last year I run into a problem of unique written documents which were right in the middle between {{Book}} and {{Artwork}}. I think {{book}} might benefit from fields that allow describing institution that hold it ( institution, location/department within the institution, accession number). We can propose adding those.
2) We can create a new {{Map}} template (either from scratch or by expanding other templates) that would accommodate this and possibly other fields which are now placed in description field of files (N S W E limits, projection/S stretch, etc.). Some of those fields might lend themselves into automatic KML production.
Jarek T.
User:jarekt
[1] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Book
[2] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Artwork
[3] http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Information_field
From: susanna.anas@gmail.com [mailto:susanna.anas@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Susanna Ånäs Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 3:20 PM To: Tim Alder Cc: Map integration; Tuszynski, Jaroslaw W.; Valentine Charles; dan entous; David Haskiya Subject: Re: [Maps-l] Wikimaps: About the template for maps
Let's stick to the mailing list!
If you want to keep up with the rest of the discussion, it would be beneficial to subscribe to the list. With this thread I think we can continue as is.
Let's continue. We need to get
- opinions/information about relevant bibliographic metadata schemes
- whatever the mapwarper stores with a rectified map
Here are the map attributes from MapWarper:
Title
Description
Tags
Subject area
Metadata Unique iD
Source / Bibliographic Ref URL
Call Number
Publisher
Place of Publication
Author(s)
Date Depicted
Published Date
Reprint Date
Scale
Metadata Projection
Metadata Location: lat, lon
Here's what Zotero offers:
Zotero label
Zotero fieldname
CSL fieldname
Scale
scale
none
Language
language
none
Short Title
shortTitle
none
Library Catalog
libraryCatalog
none
Rights
rights
none
ISBN
ISBN
ISBN
URL
url
URL
Abstract
abstractNote
abstract
Accessed
accessDate
accessed
Archive
archive
archive
Loc. in Archive
archiveLocation
archive_location
Call Number
callNumber
call-number
Series Title
seriesTitle
collection-title
Edition
edition
edition
Place
place
event-place and publisher-place
Type
mapType
genre
Date
date
issued
Extra
extra
note
Publisher
publisher
publisher
Title
title
title
Here's my summary of fields from these 2 sources that are not in the Artwork template:
Map type
Tags
Subject area/Event place
Metadata unique ID
Call number = accession number?
Publisher
Place of publication
Date of publication = date?
Date depicted
Reprint date
Scale
Metadata projection
Metadata location: lat + lon
Language
Library Catalogue
ISBN
URL
Accessed
Series title
Edition
Cheers,
Susanna
2013/5/30 Tim Alder tim.alder@s2002.tu-chemnitz.de
Thanks Jarek to remember the old KML-overlay solution (A project of User:Dschwen and me from 2007). The KML-solution had very limited features to make complex transformation to map an historical map on the actual world, but we can use the principle to provide via a template a link to a tool that use data from an Wiki subpage.
With the KML-solution we could only store lat, lon, 2 values for scaling the map and rotation angle. Now I would store a list of matching points with x,y in pixel of the map and lat,lon. Would this be ok for Maps-wraper? (I'm not an expert in this area.)
Like Maarten Dammers I want to make a first rapid hack as a base for the final solution.
If we know the parameter definition I could hack a template let's say "overlay2" that opens the right page in Maps-wraper's map viewer[1]. For this it would be nice if Maps-wraper could work with Commons imagenames as identifier instead of numbers. Would these be possible?
The Maps-wraper should have on the other side an export page for the matching parameters so that a user can store it on commons at a subpage.
The advantage of the KML-solution was that we don't need any caching storage. Now the transformations cost a lot of cpu-time so we need a caching of the tiles at maps-wraper.
Greetings Tim Alder
P.S: I think we should organize the communication so that every mail is going directly to everone or we should use only the maps-l mailing list[2]. So it is confusing. I would prefer the mailing list but don't want to loose anyone how is interested. Sussana should decide.
[1] http://maps-warper.instance-proxy.wmflabs.org/maps/1 [2] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/maps-l
2013/5/30 Tuszynski, Jaroslaw W. <JAROSLAW.W.TUSZYNSKI@saic.com
mailto:JAROSLAW.W.TUSZYNSKI@saic.com>
Hi all,____
__ __
A standard, way of geolocating maps involves use of subpages with KML code. See for example http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dayton,_Indiana_1878.png and http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dayton,_Indiana_1878.png/overlay.kml . There was not a whole lot of people creating those KML's and the software often does not like the subpages of files, but the infrastructure is there ready to use. If there was more interest in using them we could discuss some improvements to the system. We could also streamline kml production based on available data. Most current files are created using North/South/East/West edges and possible rotation. It might be more convenient to use coordinates of
4 corners, which is a format also supported by KML. ____
__ __
Another possibility would be to use Template:GeoPolygon, or both. ____
__ __
Are there any other fields specific to maps that are not template:Artwork? We could always upload a few sample images by hand (or pick existing ones) and ask community for help on formatting metadata, which would be than used as a template (using non Wikipedia meaning of the word) for the other uploads. That way we can easily see what are the possible improvements to Commons
templates (using Wikipedia meaning of the word).____
__ __
We could also create a specialized template for maps, which could be just extension of Artwork template. But it would be the best to avoid that if not necessary. Rarely used templates tend to get
little attention and maintenance. ____
__ __
Jarek T.____
User:jarekt____