On Fri, Aug 02, 2013 at 11:57:36AM +0200, dan entous wrote:
the mappings will serve a specific purpose. they will
map potentially
unique XML metadata formats and standard XML metadata formats to
mediawiki template parameters. would the namespace Metadata_mappings,
i prefer plural because there will be many mappings, be too generic or
would that suffice for everyone?
There are many articles. We use Article:. There are many users. We use
User:. It makes little sense to depart from established practice.
i still believe that the use of the user name is
important. two or
more people could come up with their own version of how to map
Rijksmuseum metadata with mediawiki template parameters, so if we
continue with this namespacing concept the potential title would be :
Metadata_mappings:Dan-nl/Rijksmusem.
But the Rijksmusem isn't a subresource of you. If anything I would
suggest having a "base" and enabling subpages so users could add their
own mappings, hopefully with more informative titles than just their
usernames, like Metadata_mapping:Rijksmusem/No_publication_date or
something. (admittedly I made something up but you get the idea)
one thing i forgot to mention was the addition of an
extension to the
title to help identify the format of the content of the title. we were
planning to use .json, so the end title would be :
Metadata_mappings:Dan-nl/Rijksmusem.json. would that make sense to
everyone?
There's no need for this. Everything in this namespace would be JSON,
so putting that information in the title twice would be silly.
It wouldn't be hard to add to these templates, and I've already done
it for the Information template, so this would be a good idea to do
now-or-soon. Interface with Nazmul, who is Rasel160, who's been working
on auto-generating forms for Commons templates in UploadWizard, and
see if you can't work together on this :)
Ta,
--
Mark Holmquist
Software Engineer, Multimedia
Wikimedia Foundation
mtraceur(a)member.fsf.org
https://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/User:MHolmquist