David, This is an interesting question. I think that a dataset is just like any other table such as the ones included in Wikipedia, with lots more entries and maybe even pieces attached that can't go on Wikipedia such as pictures, audio, short films, pieces of software code, or other media. So I guess this page should be merged with the DataNamespace page. The problem is how to reference a dataset or table. Images on Commons are timestamped with a source link that is often {{self}}, but more often a weblink somewhere that may or may not die within a year or two. Since the image is something that you can't really change easily, this is generally not an issue, but how do you see this with data that can be manipulated? I don't really see how you can upload datasets as whole "blobs" that will keep all the pieces together the way a .djvu file keeps the text with the images. Jane 2014-05-15 16:46 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: kikkocristian(a)gmail.com&gt; textual sharing _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

David, I would strongly prefer a system that keeps the parts together, while at the same time, keeping all the parts separate and interchangeable. I hate that the .djvu files are blobs now, because if I find a better scan of an engraving from a book, I would like to replace the crappy scan that is in the .djvu file. I suppose you need to keep the version you uploaded, but you always want to present the best you have to the reader. I have looked at problems with datasets for a small GLAM, and have seen just how bad the data can be. I am mostly a web-surfer of poorly-designed GLAM datasets, which is why I have spent many hours thinking about these things. I have since given up trying to preach the evangelism of open data to GLAMs and started thinking more about what Wikipedia can do to curate the world's art. Many GLAMs are willing to share their data, but believe me when I say we may not want it. The backlog in batch uploads to Commons is not the technical upload queue, it's all the data massaging by hand that Wikipedians need to do beforehand. That work, which is done by Commons wizards, goes largely unrecognized today. Theoretically, a specific artwork is both a data item and a dataset. If you look at our artwork template on Commons you may have noticed how it has grown in the past 4 years and is fast becoming a fairly comprehensive standard dataset for certain items. The next step is to create a way to index these per object (yes we have categories - is that really the best we can do?). For popular artworks that are architectural features, Wiki Loves Monuments has harvested so many images of these from all different angles that you could probably make the case that Wikimedia Commons has more images than any other publication about that specific item. If you browse the various language versions and their representation of the object, you will notice that individual Wikipedians have selected different images, but these are rarely linked to each other and the casual Wikipedia reader has no idea that they can probably view the object in 3-D if they want to, or see a short movie about how it was made. Indeed, let's face it, most casual readers have only heard of Wikipedia and are completely unaware of Wikimedia Commons and have never heard of Wikimedia Commons categories. Take the case for the Sagrada Familia: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia This category is augmented by a gallery page, with the helpful text "The Sagrada Família is an unfinished church in the Catalan city of Barcelona, considered to be architect Antoni Gaudí's masterpiece. For images of the Holy Family (Jesus, Mary, and Joseph), see Category:Holy Family." : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Sagrada_Fam%C3%ADlia Is this really the best we can do? Has anyone ever stopped and counted the rate at which we accumulate photos of the Sagrada Familia each year? We don't want to deter people from uploading, because we are probably still missing important photos of various internal features. But how do we show the gaps in our coverage of this object, while presenting an encyclopedic view? The English Wikipedia page includes about 40 images with a link to the category, but no other hints for media navigation. This is just one example, there are many more. I would like to see a system by which the normal Wiki-collaboration process can be used to slowly integrate all of the Commons files into datasets per item, and then include these into datasets per city or artist or GLAM or whatever. I suppose it should be lists of categories, gallery pages, and templates, most of them blank (like the artwork template - you can use the fields or not, as long as you include the minimum for the upload wizard). Wikidata can help with the template fields as properties. Jane 2014-05-15 18:14 GMT+02:00, David Cuenca &lt;dacuetu(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: images, contain the then a wrote: commons they , _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>