Hi there,
is there a chance some of the software developed here could potentially be used for this purpose?
Hoi, Several years ago there was a working prototype developed to do exactly that. It is lexical in nature and it did include the interwiki links.
It should not be that hard to build upon Wikidata to achieve something similar... It is called omegawiki. Thanks, GerardM
On 20 January 2013 21:18, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi there,
is there a chance some of the software developed here could potentially be used for this purpose?
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Yes, there is a chance that some of the software developed here could potentially be used for this purpose. I like these vague questions... :)
I'd think it would be appropriate to spec out how these features should work and get a consensus on such a plan. Think about questions like: * how is it represented in the wikitext? I.e. do I categorize a picture with [[Category:Dog]] or can I also write [[Kategorie:Hund]]? * how should this be displayed on a page? * what about subcategorizing? How does this work? * is it only about categories? What about image descriptions? * what about the plenty of data that is already in Commons? Can this be reused or replaced? etc.
There are plenty of questions that are not clear when thinking about Commons. Commons is the second largest WMF project, and growing with an increasing speed. Features like Wikibase's sitelinks, labels, descriptions, and aliases could be possible to be reused on Commons, I would say, but this only answers a few of the questions that arise from changing a complex socio-technical project like Commons, and it is obvious that this should happen within the Commons community and be discussed in the community.
Or, put differently: I don't know enough about Commons and its community. If there is something like a RfC-process on Commons, it should probably be started and a goal drafted of what is actually desired.
Our own focus for the first year of development of Wikidata is with Wikipedia, as was always communicated, but we are aware that there are a few low hanging fruits to be gained for other projects once Wikidata is fully functional.
These are just my own thoughts. I hope that helps. Cheers, Denny
2013/1/20 Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com
Hi there,
is there a chance some of the software developed here could potentially be used for this purpose?
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
I have worked on Commons a bit and was already thinking how could Wikidata be integrated into it.
On 21/01/13 12:55, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
I'd think it would be appropriate to spec out how these features should work and get a consensus on such a plan. Think about questions like:
- how is it represented in the wikitext? I.e. do I categorize a picture
with [[Category:Dog]] or can I also write [[Kategorie:Hund]]?
- how should this be displayed on a page?
I don't think category links would any longer be represented in wikitext, but each image description page would be a wikidata item.
Wikidata already has various de facto "statement groups" (I'm sorry I'm not up to the newest terminology so I'm not sure how are they called). The data in the groups are edited independently of each other, and also displayed in various ways. Right now, there are two groups: labels and wikilinks. Labels are displayed as article titles and only one label is displayed at the time, while wikilinks are displayed in a table and multiple wikilinks are displayed at once.
But there is no need to stick to this organization, and various wikis in various namespaces could have different statement groups that could be displayed in various ways. For example, it would be possible that, on Commons, in Image namespace, have three groups: image description, image properties, and image categories. Image description would be displayed and edited similar to Wikidata label: only in the current interface language. Image properties would be displayed and edited as wikidata properties will be. Image categories would be displayed and edited as categories.
Image metadata might tie into all of this as well: these would be special properties that are not directly editable but filled in on image upload.
- what about subcategorizing? How does this work?
Similarly, every category would be an item. Category titles in various languages would be handled exactly the same as Wikidata labels. A category would have its supercategories as properties.
About the only potential problem that I see is that in some cases categorization is made logically, and in some cases linguistically. For example, on Commons, [[:Category:Tree rings]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Rings]] which makes sense in English language, but in Serbian language tree rings aren't called tree rings and no one would ever got the idea to categorize them as such or to search for them in that category.
- is it only about categories? What about image descriptions?
Multilingual image descriptions are a common occurence.
- what about the plenty of data that is already in Commons? Can this be
reused or replaced?
A lot of data in Commons is already very structured, so I believe it shouldn't be a problem to transfer it to another format. About the only problem that I see is the potential need for coexistence of raw wikitext and wikidata in the same namespace while the transition is occuring, but even that is solvable.
I would really like to see each Commons image have its own wikidata item, where not only categories can be represented, but also such things such as global usage, origin, licensing, provenance etc. can be stored and shared. Jane
2013/1/21, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs:
I have worked on Commons a bit and was already thinking how could Wikidata be integrated into it.
On 21/01/13 12:55, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
I'd think it would be appropriate to spec out how these features should work and get a consensus on such a plan. Think about questions like:
- how is it represented in the wikitext? I.e. do I categorize a picture
with [[Category:Dog]] or can I also write [[Kategorie:Hund]]?
- how should this be displayed on a page?
I don't think category links would any longer be represented in wikitext, but each image description page would be a wikidata item.
Wikidata already has various de facto "statement groups" (I'm sorry I'm not up to the newest terminology so I'm not sure how are they called). The data in the groups are edited independently of each other, and also displayed in various ways. Right now, there are two groups: labels and wikilinks. Labels are displayed as article titles and only one label is displayed at the time, while wikilinks are displayed in a table and multiple wikilinks are displayed at once.
But there is no need to stick to this organization, and various wikis in various namespaces could have different statement groups that could be displayed in various ways. For example, it would be possible that, on Commons, in Image namespace, have three groups: image description, image properties, and image categories. Image description would be displayed and edited similar to Wikidata label: only in the current interface language. Image properties would be displayed and edited as wikidata properties will be. Image categories would be displayed and edited as categories.
Image metadata might tie into all of this as well: these would be special properties that are not directly editable but filled in on image upload.
- what about subcategorizing? How does this work?
Similarly, every category would be an item. Category titles in various languages would be handled exactly the same as Wikidata labels. A category would have its supercategories as properties.
About the only potential problem that I see is that in some cases categorization is made logically, and in some cases linguistically. For example, on Commons, [[:Category:Tree rings]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Rings]] which makes sense in English language, but in Serbian language tree rings aren't called tree rings and no one would ever got the idea to categorize them as such or to search for them in that category.
- is it only about categories? What about image descriptions?
Multilingual image descriptions are a common occurence.
- what about the plenty of data that is already in Commons? Can this be
reused or replaced?
A lot of data in Commons is already very structured, so I believe it shouldn't be a problem to transfer it to another format. About the only problem that I see is the potential need for coexistence of raw wikitext and wikidata in the same namespace while the transition is occuring, but even that is solvable.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hi all,
thanks for the feedback. Basically, I think we have 2 problems to solve in multiple languages: - categories - image/file description (= name + description)
I think these both could be independent entries in WikiData database.
I started a discussion on Commons Village pump - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Wikidata_-_translatin...
and also created a place for possible proposal - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kozuch/Wikidata
all input is welcome
Kozuch
2013/1/21 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
I would really like to see each Commons image have its own wikidata item, where not only categories can be represented, but also such things such as global usage, origin, licensing, provenance etc. can be stored and shared. Jane
2013/1/21, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs:
I have worked on Commons a bit and was already thinking how could Wikidata be integrated into it.
On 21/01/13 12:55, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
I'd think it would be appropriate to spec out how these features should work and get a consensus on such a plan. Think about questions like:
- how is it represented in the wikitext? I.e. do I categorize a picture
with [[Category:Dog]] or can I also write [[Kategorie:Hund]]?
- how should this be displayed on a page?
I don't think category links would any longer be represented in wikitext, but each image description page would be a wikidata item.
Wikidata already has various de facto "statement groups" (I'm sorry I'm not up to the newest terminology so I'm not sure how are they called). The data in the groups are edited independently of each other, and also displayed in various ways. Right now, there are two groups: labels and wikilinks. Labels are displayed as article titles and only one label is displayed at the time, while wikilinks are displayed in a table and multiple wikilinks are displayed at once.
But there is no need to stick to this organization, and various wikis in various namespaces could have different statement groups that could be displayed in various ways. For example, it would be possible that, on Commons, in Image namespace, have three groups: image description, image properties, and image categories. Image description would be displayed and edited similar to Wikidata label: only in the current interface language. Image properties would be displayed and edited as wikidata properties will be. Image categories would be displayed and edited as categories.
Image metadata might tie into all of this as well: these would be special properties that are not directly editable but filled in on image upload.
- what about subcategorizing? How does this work?
Similarly, every category would be an item. Category titles in various languages would be handled exactly the same as Wikidata labels. A category would have its supercategories as properties.
About the only potential problem that I see is that in some cases categorization is made logically, and in some cases linguistically. For example, on Commons, [[:Category:Tree rings]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Rings]] which makes sense in English language, but in Serbian language tree rings aren't called tree rings and no one would ever got the idea to categorize them as such or to search for them in that category.
- is it only about categories? What about image descriptions?
Multilingual image descriptions are a common occurence.
- what about the plenty of data that is already in Commons? Can this be
reused or replaced?
A lot of data in Commons is already very structured, so I believe it shouldn't be a problem to transfer it to another format. About the only problem that I see is the potential need for coexistence of raw wikitext and wikidata in the same namespace while the transition is occuring, but even that is solvable.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hoi, The one thing that is necessary is to have translations for the category. When an image uses a particular category it shows the translations conform a setting somewhere.. Having the files and their descriptions is a lot more complicated. Just consider, people select an image by its looks.. not so much by the description. Thanks, GerardM
On 21 January 2013 18:30, Jan Kučera kozuch82@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
thanks for the feedback. Basically, I think we have 2 problems to solve in multiple languages:
- categories
- image/file description (= name + description)
I think these both could be independent entries in WikiData database.
I started a discussion on Commons Village pump - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Wikidata_-_translatin...
and also created a place for possible proposal - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kozuch/Wikidata
all input is welcome
Kozuch
2013/1/21 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
I would really like to see each Commons image have its own wikidata item, where not only categories can be represented, but also such things such as global usage, origin, licensing, provenance etc. can be stored and shared. Jane
2013/1/21, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.rs:
I have worked on Commons a bit and was already thinking how could Wikidata be integrated into it.
On 21/01/13 12:55, Denny Vrandečić wrote:
I'd think it would be appropriate to spec out how these features should work and get a consensus on such a plan. Think about questions like:
- how is it represented in the wikitext? I.e. do I categorize a picture
with [[Category:Dog]] or can I also write [[Kategorie:Hund]]?
- how should this be displayed on a page?
I don't think category links would any longer be represented in wikitext, but each image description page would be a wikidata item.
Wikidata already has various de facto "statement groups" (I'm sorry I'm not up to the newest terminology so I'm not sure how are they called). The data in the groups are edited independently of each other, and also displayed in various ways. Right now, there are two groups: labels and wikilinks. Labels are displayed as article titles and only one label is displayed at the time, while wikilinks are displayed in a table and multiple wikilinks are displayed at once.
But there is no need to stick to this organization, and various wikis in various namespaces could have different statement groups that could be displayed in various ways. For example, it would be possible that, on Commons, in Image namespace, have three groups: image description, image properties, and image categories. Image description would be displayed and edited similar to Wikidata label: only in the current interface language. Image properties would be displayed and edited as wikidata properties will be. Image categories would be displayed and edited as categories.
Image metadata might tie into all of this as well: these would be special properties that are not directly editable but filled in on image upload.
- what about subcategorizing? How does this work?
Similarly, every category would be an item. Category titles in various languages would be handled exactly the same as Wikidata labels. A category would have its supercategories as properties.
About the only potential problem that I see is that in some cases categorization is made logically, and in some cases linguistically. For example, on Commons, [[:Category:Tree rings]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Rings]] which makes sense in English language, but in Serbian language tree rings aren't called tree rings and no one would ever got the idea to categorize them as such or to search for them in that category.
- is it only about categories? What about image descriptions?
Multilingual image descriptions are a common occurence.
- what about the plenty of data that is already in Commons? Can this be
reused or replaced?
A lot of data in Commons is already very structured, so I believe it shouldn't be a problem to transfer it to another format. About the only problem that I see is the potential need for coexistence of raw wikitext and wikidata in the same namespace while the transition is occuring, but even that is solvable.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Hi,
just thinking loud: ;-)
Hm, categories as own items, sounds very interesting also for the monuments lists.
Each monument is one item which could have an article on various Wikipedia and even an own category with its bundle of images.
Of couse very image should also have its own item, e.g. for very complex, but possible queries.
Marco
On 01/21/13 17:30, Jan Kučera wrote:
Hi all,
thanks for the feedback. Basically, I think we have 2 problems to solve in multiple languages:
- categories
- image/file description (= name + description)
I think these both could be independent entries in WikiData database.
I started a discussion on Commons Village pump - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump#Wikidata_-_translatin...
and also created a place for possible proposal - http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Kozuch/Wikidata
all input is welcome
Kozuch
2013/1/21 Jane Darnell <jane023@gmail.com mailto:jane023@gmail.com>
I would really like to see each Commons image have its own wikidata item, where not only categories can be represented, but also such things such as global usage, origin, licensing, provenance etc. can be stored and shared. Jane 2013/1/21, Nikola Smolenski <smolensk@eunet.rs <mailto:smolensk@eunet.rs>>: > I have worked on Commons a bit and was already thinking how could > Wikidata be integrated into it. > > On 21/01/13 12:55, Denny Vrandečić wrote: >> I'd think it would be appropriate to spec out how these features should >> work and get a consensus on such a plan. Think about questions like: >> * how is it represented in the wikitext? I.e. do I categorize a picture >> with [[Category:Dog]] or can I also write [[Kategorie:Hund]]? > > * how should this be displayed on a page? > > I don't think category links would any longer be represented in > wikitext, but each image description page would be a wikidata item. > > Wikidata already has various de facto "statement groups" (I'm sorry I'm > not up to the newest terminology so I'm not sure how are they called). > The data in the groups are edited independently of each other, and also > displayed in various ways. Right now, there are two groups: labels and > wikilinks. Labels are displayed as article titles and only one label is > displayed at the time, while wikilinks are displayed in a table and > multiple wikilinks are displayed at once. > > But there is no need to stick to this organization, and various wikis in > various namespaces could have different statement groups that could be > displayed in various ways. For example, it would be possible that, on > Commons, in Image namespace, have three groups: image description, image > properties, and image categories. Image description would be displayed > and edited similar to Wikidata label: only in the current interface > language. Image properties would be displayed and edited as wikidata > properties will be. Image categories would be displayed and edited as > categories. > > Image metadata might tie into all of this as well: these would be > special properties that are not directly editable but filled in on image > upload. > >> * what about subcategorizing? How does this work? > > Similarly, every category would be an item. Category titles in various > languages would be handled exactly the same as Wikidata labels. A > category would have its supercategories as properties. > > About the only potential problem that I see is that in some cases > categorization is made logically, and in some cases linguistically. For > example, on Commons, [[:Category:Tree rings]] is a subcategory of > [[:Category:Rings]] which makes sense in English language, but in > Serbian language tree rings aren't called tree rings and no one would > ever got the idea to categorize them as such or to search for them in > that category. > >> * is it only about categories? What about image descriptions? > > Multilingual image descriptions are a common occurence. > >> * what about the plenty of data that is already in Commons? Can this be >> reused or replaced? > > A lot of data in Commons is already very structured, so I believe it > shouldn't be a problem to transfer it to another format. About the only > problem that I see is the potential need for coexistence of raw wikitext > and wikidata in the same namespace while the transition is occuring, but > even that is solvable. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikidata-l mailing list > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l > _______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l