The Museum of Modern Art of New York has published a CSV on GitHub containing the data of its entire collection under a CC0 license.
https://github.com/MuseumofModernArt/collection
They have blogged about it. https://medium.com/digital-moma/thousands-of-exhausted-things-or-why-we-dedi...
"This data release https://github.com/MuseumofModernArt/collection includes all of the works that have been both accessioned into MoMA’s collection *and* cataloged in our database. It includes basic data for each work, including title, artist, date made, medium, dimensions, and date acquired by the Museum."
"MoMA’s open data is primarily intended to be useful to scholars, so it was important to make each version citable."
"*Thanks to the **Cooper-Hewitt* https://github.com/cooperhewitt/collection* and **Tate* https://github.com/tategallery/collection* for paving the way by releasing their own collection data on GitHub using CC0. Thanks also to George Oates (**@goodformand* https://twitter.com/goodformand*) for reassuring us that a CSV is not just the easiest way to start but probably the most accessible format for a broad audience of researchers, artists, and designers."*
They actually produced a live, on-site performance about the data released, and blogged about it: https://medium.com/@blprnt/a-sort-of-joy-1d9d5ff02ac9
"This release of open data by MoMA is by no means revolutionary. Two years ago the Tate Modern released its own collection on GitHub https://github.com/tategallery/collection. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam has not only released its data (images and all), it has also built an API https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/api to allow anyone easy access to it. In 2013 the British Museum released 1,000,000 images https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/page1 under a Creative Commons license."
Anyway, this might not be big or surprising news to those of you following closely this scene. I just found amusing to learn accidentally about this the day that Wiki Loves Open Data has started taking shape in a wiki page.
Way Cool!
From a business model perspective, museums have always been in a good
position to publish open data since it is all about getting donations, getting people in the door and the various cultural tie-ups.
The blog does point out another issue which is that museum people have long been rigorous about metadata despite having metadata problems more difficult than (say) libraries since most of the things that have aren't serial objects. They made the decision to publish uncurated records and mark them as such and that makes a lot of sense.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Museum of Modern Art of New York has published a CSV on GitHub containing the data of its entire collection under a CC0 license.
https://github.com/MuseumofModernArt/collection
They have blogged about it. https://medium.com/digital-moma/thousands-of-exhausted-things-or-why-we-dedi...
"This data release https://github.com/MuseumofModernArt/collection includes all of the works that have been both accessioned into MoMA’s collection *and* cataloged in our database. It includes basic data for each work, including title, artist, date made, medium, dimensions, and date acquired by the Museum."
"MoMA’s open data is primarily intended to be useful to scholars, so it was important to make each version citable."
"*Thanks to the **Cooper-Hewitt* https://github.com/cooperhewitt/collection* and **Tate* https://github.com/tategallery/collection* for paving the way by releasing their own collection data on GitHub using CC0. Thanks also to George Oates (**@goodformand* https://twitter.com/goodformand*) for reassuring us that a CSV is not just the easiest way to start but probably the most accessible format for a broad audience of researchers, artists, and designers."*
They actually produced a live, on-site performance about the data released, and blogged about it: https://medium.com/@blprnt/a-sort-of-joy-1d9d5ff02ac9
"This release of open data by MoMA is by no means revolutionary. Two years ago the Tate Modern released its own collection on GitHub https://github.com/tategallery/collection. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam has not only released its data (images and all), it has also built an API https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/api to allow anyone easy access to it. In 2013 the British Museum released 1,000,000 images https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/page1 under a Creative Commons license."
Anyway, this might not be big or surprising news to those of you following closely this scene. I just found amusing to learn accidentally about this the day that Wiki Loves Open Data has started taking shape in a wiki page.
-- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
FYI: Imported into mix'n'match: https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=catalog_details&catalog=82
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:48 AM Paul Houle ontology2@gmail.com wrote:
Way Cool!
From a business model perspective, museums have always been in a good position to publish open data since it is all about getting donations, getting people in the door and the various cultural tie-ups.
The blog does point out another issue which is that museum people have long been rigorous about metadata despite having metadata problems more difficult than (say) libraries since most of the things that have aren't serial objects. They made the decision to publish uncurated records and mark them as such and that makes a lot of sense.
On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 5:58 PM, Quim Gil qgil@wikimedia.org wrote:
The Museum of Modern Art of New York has published a CSV on GitHub containing the data of its entire collection under a CC0 license.
https://github.com/MuseumofModernArt/collection
They have blogged about it. https://medium.com/digital-moma/thousands-of-exhausted-things-or-why-we-dedi...
"This data release https://github.com/MuseumofModernArt/collection includes all of the works that have been both accessioned into MoMA’s collection *and* cataloged in our database. It includes basic data for each work, including title, artist, date made, medium, dimensions, and date acquired by the Museum."
"MoMA’s open data is primarily intended to be useful to scholars, so it was important to make each version citable."
"*Thanks to the **Cooper-Hewitt* https://github.com/cooperhewitt/collection* and **Tate* https://github.com/tategallery/collection* for paving the way by releasing their own collection data on GitHub using CC0. Thanks also to George Oates (**@goodformand* https://twitter.com/goodformand*) for reassuring us that a CSV is not just the easiest way to start but probably the most accessible format for a broad audience of researchers, artists, and designers."*
They actually produced a live, on-site performance about the data released, and blogged about it: https://medium.com/@blprnt/a-sort-of-joy-1d9d5ff02ac9
"This release of open data by MoMA is by no means revolutionary. Two years ago the Tate Modern released its own collection on GitHub https://github.com/tategallery/collection. The Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam has not only released its data (images and all), it has also built an API https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/api to allow anyone easy access to it. In 2013 the British Museum released 1,000,000 images https://www.flickr.com/photos/britishlibrary/page1 under a Creative Commons license."
Anyway, this might not be big or surprising news to those of you following closely this scene. I just found amusing to learn accidentally about this the day that Wiki Loves Open Data has started taking shape in a wiki page.
-- Quim Gil Engineering Community Manager @ Wikimedia Foundation http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/User:Qgil
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
-- Paul Houle
*Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems, Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes*
(607) 539 6254 paul.houle on Skype ontology2@gmail.com https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/ http://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup/ _______________________________________________ Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 30 July 2015 at 11:33, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
FYI: Imported into mix'n'match: https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=catalog_details&catalog=82
Suggest you drop a comment to that effect, on MOMA's blog post:
https://medium.com/digital-moma/thousands-of-exhausted-things-or-why-we-dedi...
You never know, it might draw in some more contributors.
Wow. Their (Medium) "Twitter sign-in" want access to everything short of my password. Their Google sign-in doesn't work. I'm not on Facebook.
Trying direct sign-up now...
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 30 July 2015 at 11:33, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
FYI: Imported into mix'n'match: https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=catalog_details&catalog=82
Suggest you drop a comment to that effect, on MOMA's blog post:
https://medium.com/digital-moma/thousands-of-exhausted-things-or-why-we-dedi...
You never know, it might draw in some more contributors.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Everyone vote for MoMA property creation please ;-)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#M...
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 2:33 PM Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Wow. Their (Medium) "Twitter sign-in" want access to everything short of my password. Their Google sign-in doesn't work. I'm not on Facebook.
Trying direct sign-up now...
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 1:55 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 30 July 2015 at 11:33, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
FYI: Imported into mix'n'match: https://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/?mode=catalog_details&catalog=82
Suggest you drop a comment to that effect, on MOMA's blog post:
https://medium.com/digital-moma/thousands-of-exhausted-things-or-why-we-dedi...
You never know, it might draw in some more contributors.
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
On 30 July 2015 at 14:52, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone vote for MoMA property creation please ;-)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#M...
I took the liberty of speedily creating that - P2014
Always nice to have friends in high places ;-)
Added to Mix'n'match, synced the 5 matched items over.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 3:28 PM Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 30 July 2015 at 14:52, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone vote for MoMA property creation please ;-)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#M...
I took the liberty of speedily creating that - P2014
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, Good job ... went there to approve ... but as there is nothing to approve I do. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 July 2015 at 16:27, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 30 July 2015 at 14:52, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone vote for MoMA property creation please ;-)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#M...
I took the liberty of speedily creating that - P2014
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
As I hinted on project chat: if we create a property for MoMA IDs, we really have to be consistent and create property for all art collections that use persistent IDs and of which we have items on Wikidata. I think we (will) have hundreds of these. Are we OK with that - having hundreds of museum and art collection-specific properties?
Best, Sandra
On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:44, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Good job ... went there to approve ... but as there is nothing to approve I do. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 July 2015 at 16:27, Andy Mabbett <andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk mailto:andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote: On 30 July 2015 at 14:52, Magnus Manske <magnusmanske@googlemail.com mailto:magnusmanske@googlemail.com> wrote:
Everyone vote for MoMA property creation please ;-)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#M... https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#MoMA_artwork
I took the liberty of speedily creating that - P2014
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk http://pigsonthewing.org.uk/
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Yes I got the gist of that hint and am still thinking about it. I am still not sure, but probably yes. It's the same reasoning as for the WLM unique identifiers btw. I am leaning towards at least one set of identifiers per country. We can think of these heritage sites after all as objects in the collection of "living history museums"
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Sandra Fauconnier < sandra.fauconnier@gmail.com> wrote:
As I hinted on project chat: if we create a property for MoMA IDs, we really have to be consistent and create property for all art collections that use persistent IDs and of which we have items on Wikidata. I think we (will) have hundreds of these. Are we OK with that - having hundreds of museum and art collection-specific properties?
Best, Sandra
On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:44, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Good job ... went there to approve ... but as there is nothing to approve I do. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 July 2015 at 16:27, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 30 July 2015 at 14:52, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone vote for MoMA property creation please ;-)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#M...
I took the liberty of speedily creating that - P2014
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Hoi, There is only one ID that truly identifies an object uniquely and, that is the ID of the collection involved. It is an happy occasion when they all match but they will not always match. Storing IDs is not a big problem, in the end we will find that having them leads to harmonisation. Consequently there is no real argument as far as I understand them why we cannot have them all. It has one distinct advantage, we can more easily compare our data with `theirs`.
When we show a given set in a given country, we make an arbitrary distinction. When we make it a preference, it is more complicated but more useful- Thanks, GerardM
On 2 August 2015 at 12:44, Sandra Fauconnier sandra.fauconnier@gmail.com wrote:
As I hinted on project chat: if we create a property for MoMA IDs, we really have to be consistent and create property for all art collections that use persistent IDs and of which we have items on Wikidata. I think we (will) have hundreds of these. Are we OK with that - having hundreds of museum and art collection-specific properties?
Best, Sandra
On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:44, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Good job ... went there to approve ... but as there is nothing to approve I do. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 July 2015 at 16:27, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 30 July 2015 at 14:52, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone vote for MoMA property creation please ;-)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#M...
I took the liberty of speedily creating that - P2014
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Most middle-sized towns in Europe have municipal collections that reach into the tens of thousands of objects. I am totally on board to allow this, and also to allow municipality WLM identifiers (so not just country identifiers for heritage, but also at the local level)
Let's do it!
On Sun, Aug 2, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, There is only one ID that truly identifies an object uniquely and, that is the ID of the collection involved. It is an happy occasion when they all match but they will not always match. Storing IDs is not a big problem, in the end we will find that having them leads to harmonisation. Consequently there is no real argument as far as I understand them why we cannot have them all. It has one distinct advantage, we can more easily compare our data with `theirs`.
When we show a given set in a given country, we make an arbitrary distinction. When we make it a preference, it is more complicated but more useful- Thanks, GerardM
On 2 August 2015 at 12:44, Sandra Fauconnier sandra.fauconnier@gmail.com wrote:
As I hinted on project chat: if we create a property for MoMA IDs, we really have to be consistent and create property for all art collections that use persistent IDs and of which we have items on Wikidata. I think we (will) have hundreds of these. Are we OK with that - having hundreds of museum and art collection-specific properties?
Best, Sandra
On 30 Jul 2015, at 17:44, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Good job ... went there to approve ... but as there is nothing to approve I do. Thanks, GerardM
On 30 July 2015 at 16:27, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.uk wrote:
On 30 July 2015 at 14:52, Magnus Manske magnusmanske@googlemail.com wrote:
Everyone vote for MoMA property creation please ;-)
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Authority_control#M...
I took the liberty of speedily creating that - P2014
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata