So great!
Lydia, our approach in the digitization program will be really benefited with this.
here are more examples:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Uploaded_via_Campaign:AAL%C2%A0 (all the books in this category have a complete description, some of them in wikidata also)
And from other donation we have: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil e:Playa_de_Scheveningen_-_Adriaen_van_de_Velde.jpg (work in progress to have the 800 images like that one)
Thanks :)
El jue, 28-07-2016 a las 20:13 +0200, Lydia Pintscher escribió:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 8:06 PM, Brill Lyle wp.brilllyle@gmail.com
wrote:
This is a great development. Not sure if this is helpful to discuss
here or
if it is preferrable on the Structured data page? Please advise and
I will
copy info there. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Structured_data
In May 2015, Wikimedia NYC supported an editathon with the
Guggenheim here
in NYC where the Guggenheim donated 100 images to Wikimedia Commons
as part
of a GLAM initiative. Images:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Guggenheim_Museum_Ma
y_2015#Gallery
Pharos added some really great metadata to these image pages, which
might be
helpful as a guide for what might be the most deluxe type of
Commons page
info breakout -- at least it seems pretty deluxe that to me. :-)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GUGG_Dynamism_of_a_Speeding
_Horse_%2B_Houses.jpg
Thanks. Stuff like that is useful to have as examples.
As far as discoverability goes, I think that the use of categories
on
Commons is mission critical. I see this requested feature is noted
on this
project page. Personally, I don't love the flatness of the category
system
on Commons (or Wikipedia actually) because it's not especially
faceted, but
I think that this "legacy" issue should be very clearly integrated
as this
project develops.There are so many images available on Commons but
finding
them is a problem. The file name is often not descriptive enough,
and the
metadata might be incomplete or poor. So integration with Wikidata
is key,
but again, discoverability is even more important. Otherwise it's
just
unlabeled jars on the wall.
And to be a total pain, have existing library resources, like the
A&A
Thesaurus from the Getty, been consulted to provide controlled
vocabularies
and possible copy catalog potential? Getty Art & Architecture Thesaurus: http://www.getty.edu/research/tools/vocabularies/aat/ example: http://vocab.getty.edu/aat/300021368
I'm not a working librarian but I think there are multiple semantic
resources for artwork, especially. I remember this one from grad
school....
We will be using Wikidata's vocabulary (items and properties) as that has a lot of advantages here. However a lot of that is already connected to A&A Thesaurus and others. So we're pretty flexible there for different usecases.
Cheers Lydia
-- Mauricio Vidal Genta Coordinador del proyecto de digitalización A. C. Wikimedia Argentina