Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Scott MacLeod]

Robert and Jane,

Robert, great ... To further support an ecosystem of Wikidatas, I hope we
might develop World University and School in Wikidata together. How might
we best make this happen? (What might be the very first steps to begin
moving from the current Wikia to Wikidata, if this is possible?)

Jane, is this the Alex Peek you're referring to -
https://plus.google.com/101478728961573967739/posts ?

And concerning libraries, museums, as well as a WUaS Music School (all
instruments in all languages, each a wiki, subject page to begin), Jane,
WUaS plans, again in all 7,105+ languages and 204+ countries, a kind of
ecosystem of databases, by facilitating the wiki-aggregation and
wiki-curation (and perhaps eventually wiki-development in virtual worlds
with geo-coordinates) all libraries and museums with significant, online,
open, free content -

Library Resources -
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Library_Resources

Museums -
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Museums

World University Music School -
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/World_University_Music_School

In terms of a complementary to Wikicommons' ecosystem of databases, here's
a helpful overview about all-languages' and all-countries' World University
and School's nine main areas, from the following WUaS blog entry -

Courses 
Subjects 
Languages  (All)
Nation States 
 (All)
You at WUaS 

Research 
Educational Software

Library Resources 
Museums 
Hardware Resource Possibilities


"Three, main, I.T. foci at World University & School, Music School,
Universal Translator, Virtual Earth as 'classroom'"-

http://worlduniversityandschool.blogspot.com/2012/02/three-main-it-foci-at-world-university.html
 ...

All of these 9 areas are resources for WUaS's free, online, C.C. MIT
OCW-centric (and C.C. Yale OYC), C.C. WUaS university degrees accrediting
in many languages and countries, beginning with English and then in the
United Nations' languages, and then others. (WUaS recently received the
'green light' in the state of California to begin the accreditation
process! - which is great news for free, C.C., online, MIT OCW-centric
university degrees in many countries and languages).

Cheers,
Scott





On Sun, Jun 23, 2013 at 2:12 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> Thomas, Wiki Commons has only about 17 million files, and given the
> explosive growth of WikiData, this would be doable. I suggest doing it
> now rather than later.
>
> David, thanks for that clarification - I get what you mean now and I
> support your vision. I disagreed BTW with the first Signpost op-ed
> piece of last week and agree more with Jarekt's answers to that
> discussion. I didn't even bother responding because my feeling after
> reading it was "they have no clue". Copyright issues faced by Commons
> admins are incredibly complex and not to be treated lightly. It's
> ridiculous to think that admins on the English Wikipedia could just
> step in and become admins on Commons (note: I am not an admin on any
> project). I also agree however with Johnbod's comment on that same
> Signpost page that Google images is better at locating Commons files
> in searches because my search experience on Commons is terrible. The
> whole porno-image problem discussed in that article will of course not
> be addressed by creating WikiData items for each file, but I agree
> that it would make that discussion more visible (along with everything
> else becoming more visible). Making them visible will help indirectly
> of course. Not everyone feels up to contributing to deletion
> discussions on Commons (personally I would rather go have a tooth
> pulled), but making those discussions available to more readers should
> help attract those who do.
>
> Scott, you need to talk to Alex Peek on another thread about his
> vision of economic data - it looks like you two could do something
> interesting together.
>
> Rereading my last post I see I left off a few Commons links. My point
> about interconnecting files on commons is as follows. [1] is an
> engraving of Hoogstraten and is a derivative of [2] but shows an
> example of Hoogstraten's work, which is [5]. Both [3] and [4] are
> later engravings from artist dictionaries which made use of [2].
> Showing such relationships helps to build understanding for art
> provenance, but also for other art historical subjects, such as the
> historiography of art criticism. Getting these relationships outside
> of Commons could be done

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Robert]

This is pretty substantial work, which is both developmentally difficult and 
will require a lot of effort to maintain. I wouldn't expect that the work will 
be inexpensive either.
 
-Robert

  _  

From: Scott MacLeod [mailto:worlduniversityandsch...@gmail.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 22, 2013 8:35 PM
To: Discussion list for the Wikidata project.
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?


Dear David, Denny and Wikidatans,� 

Thanks for this email thread.�

I'd like to float a proposal for this ecosystem of Wikidatas vis-a-vis World 
University and School, (which is like Wikipedia with MIT OCW), with our plans 
for a wiki school or online, Creative Commons' licensed university (with free, 
online, C.C., MIT-centric, university degrees planned) in all 7,105+ languages 
and 204+ countries. C.C. WUaS hopes to engage Wikidata, as well.�

I've begun a link on the WUaS, wiki, Subjects' page called "Wikidata databases 
and ecosystem," - http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Subjects - which can 
easily become an extensible, wiki, subject page itself (using a modified 
version of Wikidata with the WUaS SUBJECT TEMPLATE - 
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/SUBJECT_TEMPLATE) in all languages and 
countries, to link all the (small number of) Wikidatas that emerge. (Check out 
this extensible, WUaS, wiki SUBJECT TEMPLATE, since it has many of the possible 
categories mentioned above in this email thread).�

Here is the beginning, Languages' wiki page at WUaS - 
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Languages - eventually to link all 
languages, each as a school or university.�


And here is the beginning Nation States' wiki page at WUaS - 
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Nation_States - eventually to link all 
nation states, each as a school or university.�

The wiki, extensible, WUaS all-languages' (7,105 per "Ethnologue") and 
all-nation states' (204 per "The Olympics") approach has the merit of 
potentially including all emergent Wikidatas in all languages (for an universal 
translator - http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/WUaS_Universal_Translator), 
and in all nation states for legal questions, in a way that fully supports the 
amazing interlingual Wikidata (which is planned for Wikipedia's 285 languages 
+), and also, - since many/most of these Wikidatas may be data about generative 
shared knowledge - will therefore fit well with World University and School 
which is for open, free, wiki, people-to-people teaching and learning.�

Best regards,�
Scott



On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:42 AM, David Cuenca  wrote:


On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:


[...] do you think there is a need for this file to have its own "F" status in 
WikiData?


Yes. The reason to have file entities is mainly to have a platform that can 
store semantic descriptions of a file. For text searches in classical terms it 
doesn't matter much, but to search things like:
- "portrait engravings by artists born in Dordrecht"
- "depictions of Dutch poets born between 1600 and 1700"

For these kind of searches, the only possible way to return relevant results is 
to store the information a semantic way as Wikidata does.
As Thomas pointed out, the task to transition to the new method looks somewhat 
daunting, luckily here there is not much trouble using bots to automate the 
task filling out the properties of the 17M files.
The case of "image promotion" I think it is a different issue that would 
require some tagging (maybe "best depiction of") or a simple voting system 
(like in youtube, reddit, etc).

It is also important to note that the old issue of sexual content in Commons 
[1] has gained *a lot* of traction lately since the last three op-ed's 
questioning/defending its suistainability [2] [3]. Basically there is a need 
that the searches show what you are looking for and not some other random 
content. The urgency to present a solution is very high at the moment, a matter 
of weeks before starting organizing WikiLoveMonuments with a cleaned 
reputation, so I hope that Wikidata can present a proposal soon that I am sure 
will be better than this other proposal [4]

Cheers,
Micru

[1] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-05-10/Commons_deletions
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-06-12/Op-ed
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-06-19/Op-ed
[4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Image_information


___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l






-- 



Scott MacLeod 
Founder & President 



http://scottmacleod.com 

--� 
World University and School
(like Wikipedia with MIT OpenCourseWare)


http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wik

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Jane Darnell]

Thomas, Wiki Commons has only about 17 million files, and given the
explosive growth of WikiData, this would be doable. I suggest doing it
now rather than later.

David, thanks for that clarification - I get what you mean now and I
support your vision. I disagreed BTW with the first Signpost op-ed
piece of last week and agree more with Jarekt's answers to that
discussion. I didn't even bother responding because my feeling after
reading it was "they have no clue". Copyright issues faced by Commons
admins are incredibly complex and not to be treated lightly. It's
ridiculous to think that admins on the English Wikipedia could just
step in and become admins on Commons (note: I am not an admin on any
project). I also agree however with Johnbod's comment on that same
Signpost page that Google images is better at locating Commons files
in searches because my search experience on Commons is terrible. The
whole porno-image problem discussed in that article will of course not
be addressed by creating WikiData items for each file, but I agree
that it would make that discussion more visible (along with everything
else becoming more visible). Making them visible will help indirectly
of course. Not everyone feels up to contributing to deletion
discussions on Commons (personally I would rather go have a tooth
pulled), but making those discussions available to more readers should
help attract those who do.

Scott, you need to talk to Alex Peek on another thread about his
vision of economic data - it looks like you two could do something
interesting together.

Rereading my last post I see I left off a few Commons links. My point
about interconnecting files on commons is as follows. [1] is an
engraving of Hoogstraten and is a derivative of [2] but shows an
example of Hoogstraten's work, which is [5]. Both [3] and [4] are
later engravings from artist dictionaries which made use of [2].
Showing such relationships helps to build understanding for art
provenance, but also for other art historical subjects, such as the
historiography of art criticism. Getting these relationships outside
of Commons could be done using an "F" namespace in WikiData I think.
That would be a fantastic improvement to the Commons category system
(which is still better than nothing).

[1] 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dirk_van_hoogstraten_by_arnold_houbraken.JPG
[2] 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schouburg_I_Plate_I_Leonard_Bramer_-_Dirk_van_Hoogstraten_-_Salomon_de_Bray.jpg
[3] 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:JCWeyerman_-_VI_plate_I_-_Leonard_Bramer_-_Dirk_van_Hoogstraten_-_Salomon_de_Bray.jpg
[4] 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jean-Baptiste_Deschamps_-_Dirck_ou_Thierry_van_Hoogstraeten_p_411.gif
[5] 
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dirk_van_hoogstraten_-_maria_met_kind_en_st_anna.jpg

2013/6/23, Scott MacLeod :
> Dear David, Denny and Wikidatans,
>
> Thanks for this email thread.
>
> I'd like to float a proposal for this ecosystem of Wikidatas vis-a-vis
> World University and School, (which is like Wikipedia with MIT OCW), with
> our plans for a wiki school or online, Creative Commons' licensed
> university (with free, online, C.C., MIT-centric, university degrees
> planned) in all 7,105+ languages and 204+ countries. C.C. WUaS hopes to
> engage Wikidata, as well.
>
> I've begun a link on the WUaS, wiki, Subjects' page called "Wikidata
> databases and ecosystem," -
> http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Subjects- which can easily
> become an extensible, wiki, subject page itself (using a
> modified version of Wikidata with the WUaS SUBJECT TEMPLATE -
> http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/SUBJECT_TEMPLATE) in all languages
> and countries, to link all the (small number of) Wikidatas that emerge.
> (Check out this extensible, WUaS, wiki SUBJECT TEMPLATE, since it has many
> of the possible categories mentioned above in this email thread).
>
> Here is the beginning, Languages' wiki page at WUaS -
> http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Languages - eventually to link all
> languages, each as a school or university.
>
>
> And here is the beginning Nation States' wiki page at WUaS -
> http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Nation_States - eventually to link
> all nation states, each as a school or university.
>
> The wiki, extensible, WUaS all-languages' (7,105 per "Ethnologue") and
> all-nation states' (204 per "The Olympics") approach has the merit of
> potentially including all emergent Wikidatas in all languages (for an
> universal translator -
> http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/WUaS_Universal_Translator), and in
> all nation states for legal questions, in a way that fully supports the
> amazing interlingual Wikidata (which is planned for Wikipedia's 285
> languages +), and also, - since many/most of these Wikidatas may be data
> about generative shared knowledge - will therefore fit well with World
> University and School which is for open, free, wiki, people-to-people
> teaching and learning.
>
> Best 

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Scott MacLeod]

Dear David, Denny and Wikidatans,

Thanks for this email thread.

I'd like to float a proposal for this ecosystem of Wikidatas vis-a-vis
World University and School, (which is like Wikipedia with MIT OCW), with
our plans for a wiki school or online, Creative Commons' licensed
university (with free, online, C.C., MIT-centric, university degrees
planned) in all 7,105+ languages and 204+ countries. C.C. WUaS hopes to
engage Wikidata, as well.

I've begun a link on the WUaS, wiki, Subjects' page called "Wikidata
databases and ecosystem," -
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Subjects- which can easily
become an extensible, wiki, subject page itself (using a
modified version of Wikidata with the WUaS SUBJECT TEMPLATE -
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/SUBJECT_TEMPLATE) in all languages
and countries, to link all the (small number of) Wikidatas that emerge.
(Check out this extensible, WUaS, wiki SUBJECT TEMPLATE, since it has many
of the possible categories mentioned above in this email thread).

Here is the beginning, Languages' wiki page at WUaS -
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Languages - eventually to link all
languages, each as a school or university.


And here is the beginning Nation States' wiki page at WUaS -
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Nation_States - eventually to link
all nation states, each as a school or university.

The wiki, extensible, WUaS all-languages' (7,105 per "Ethnologue") and
all-nation states' (204 per "The Olympics") approach has the merit of
potentially including all emergent Wikidatas in all languages (for an
universal translator -
http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/WUaS_Universal_Translator), and in
all nation states for legal questions, in a way that fully supports the
amazing interlingual Wikidata (which is planned for Wikipedia's 285
languages +), and also, - since many/most of these Wikidatas may be data
about generative shared knowledge - will therefore fit well with World
University and School which is for open, free, wiki, people-to-people
teaching and learning.

Best regards,
Scott



On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 6:42 AM, David Cuenca  wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>
>> [...] do you think there is a need for this file to have its own "F"
>> status in WikiData?
>
>
> Yes. The reason to have file entities is mainly to have a platform that
> can store semantic descriptions of a file. For text searches in classical
> terms it doesn't matter much, but to search things like:
> - "portrait engravings by artists born in Dordrecht"
> - "depictions of Dutch poets born between 1600 and 1700"
>
> For these kind of searches, the only possible way to return relevant
> results is to store the information a semantic way as Wikidata does.
> As Thomas pointed out, the task to transition to the new method looks
> somewhat daunting, luckily here there is not much trouble using bots to
> automate the task filling out the properties of the 17M files.
> The case of "image promotion" I think it is a different issue that would
> require some tagging (maybe "best depiction of") or a simple voting system
> (like in youtube, reddit, etc).
>
> It is also important to note that the old issue of sexual content in
> Commons [1] has gained *a lot* of traction lately since the last three
> op-ed's questioning/defending its suistainability [2] [3]. Basically there
> is a need that the searches show what you are looking for and not some
> other random content. The urgency to present a solution is very high at the
> moment, a matter of weeks before starting organizing WikiLoveMonuments with
> a cleaned reputation, so I hope that Wikidata can present a proposal soon
> that I am sure will be better than this other proposal [4]
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-05-10/Commons_deletions
> [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-06-12/Op-ed
> [3]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-06-19/Op-ed
> [4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Image_information
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>


-- 


Scott MacLeod
Founder & President



http://scottmacleod.com

-- 
World University and School
(like Wikipedia with MIT OpenCourseWare)


http://worlduniversity.wikia.com/wiki/Subjects

World University and School is a 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt, educational
organization.

P.O. Box 442,
(86 Ridgecrest Road),
Canyon, CA 94516

415 480 4577
worldunivand...@scottmacleod.com
worlduniversityandsch...@gmail.com
Skype: scottm100

Google + main, WUaS page:

https://plus.google.com/u/0/b/108179352492243955816/108179352492243955816/posts



Please contribute, and invite friends to contribute, tax deductibly, via
PayPal and credit card:
http://scottmacleod.com/worlduniversityandschool.htm.


World University and School

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[David Cuenca]

On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 1:49 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> [...] do you think there is a need for this file to have its own "F"
> status in WikiData?


Yes. The reason to have file entities is mainly to have a platform that can
store semantic descriptions of a file. For text searches in classical terms
it doesn't matter much, but to search things like:
- "portrait engravings by artists born in Dordrecht"
- "depictions of Dutch poets born between 1600 and 1700"

For these kind of searches, the only possible way to return relevant
results is to store the information a semantic way as Wikidata does.
As Thomas pointed out, the task to transition to the new method looks
somewhat daunting, luckily here there is not much trouble using bots to
automate the task filling out the properties of the 17M files.
The case of "image promotion" I think it is a different issue that would
require some tagging (maybe "best depiction of") or a simple voting system
(like in youtube, reddit, etc).

It is also important to note that the old issue of sexual content in
Commons [1] has gained *a lot* of traction lately since the last three
op-ed's questioning/defending its suistainability [2] [3]. Basically there
is a need that the searches show what you are looking for and not some
other random content. The urgency to present a solution is very high at the
moment, a matter of weeks before starting organizing WikiLoveMonuments with
a cleaned reputation, so I hope that Wikidata can present a proposal soon
that I am sure will be better than this other proposal [4]

Cheers,
Micru

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2010-05-10/Commons_deletions
[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-06-12/Op-ed
[3]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-06-19/Op-ed
[4] https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Image_information
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Thomas Douillard]

I think it is not about a file being or not the best to reprensent
something, it is about "can commons gain something by being in wikidata".
And I think it is the case : wikidata will give very powerful tools, with
properties to classify and describe files, and queries to find which files
matches some criteria which could help users to find what they want.

Of course the amount of work to describe precisely each file is gigantic,
so this system will not be available at his full potential, but we can be
sure that we can build something stricty better that the current category
system with a very limited cost since wikidata is already there and is
planned to interract with commons. And the availability of wikidata items
will for example a very fine graine matching of some schéma with their
topic, so we can for example find every illustration used for a
mathematical topic, whatever it is about a very specific theorem, work can
be tedious to do with the current system as the classification is higher
grained.


2013/6/22 Jane Darnell 

> I was thinking about items vs properties and Commons. I am not sure a
> "F" entity is necessary. In theory, each file on Commons can be linked
> to another one, and each item on WikiData can be linked to another
> one, but those links do not necessarily need to interconnect with
> Commons. If a Commons file is not the "best promoted image" of a
> certain WikiData item, then in my mind it does not need to be in
> WikiData.
>
> Here is an example of what I mean:
> This is an image of an engraving of Dirk van Hoogstraten:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dirk_van_hoogstraten_by_arnold_houbraken.JPG
> He has a WikiData (person) item that could link to that image here:
> http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5280895
> The image file is derived from this file:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schouburg_I_Plate_I_Leonard_Bramer_-_Dirk_van_Hoogstraten_-_Salomon_de_Bray.jpg
> which is a page from a 3-volume book about artists that has a WikiData
> (book) item (that could use the titlepage of the first volume as
> linked image). The picture of Hoogstraten on that page was also used
> later by another engraver in a later book about artists:
>
> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schouburg_I_Plate_I_Leonard_Bramer_-_Dirk_van_Hoogstraten_-_Salomon_de_Bray.jpg
>
> This second book also has a Wikidata (book) item, and the authors of
> both books have WikiData (person) items, and so do the engravers of
> the original engravings. If the original drawing of Dirk Hoogstraten
> ever comes to light, then that image could be promoted to "best image
> of Dirk Hoogstraten", and this one can remain on commons, but does not
> need to be linked to WikiData, or do you think there is a need for
> this file to have its own "F" status in WikiData?
>
> 2013/6/21, David Cuenca :
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Denny Vrandečić <
> > denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> >
> >> I agree that the different projects have different requirements. But I
> >> think we should strive for a small number of "Wikidatas" - you could
> have
> >> made the same argument for Commons, after all.
> >>
> >
> > The two projects that might need it most are Wikivoyage (hotel/restaurant
> > listings) and Wikiquote (semantic quotes), though in the end they could
> be
> > included in Wikidata with different entity types.
> > Wikisource is aligned with the existence of source items in Wikidata, so
> > other than having a "S" namespace for sources (or not) and adapting the
> > extension to work in Wikisource, there is not much need of development
> from
> > the Wikidata side. See more here:
> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikisource
> >
> >
> >> Right now, I think there is a need for Commons to have better support
> for
> >> data - we are working on a proposal text for that - and Wiktionary - as
> >> it
> >> is really a different system - needs some special treatments - we have
> >> just
> >> send a proposal text for that.
> >>
> >
> > The Wiktionary proposal is a great start. I'm excited about the Commons
> > proposal. It would be fabulous to have an "F" entity type for files :)
> >
> > (You can always go further and say "but it would be better if we
> supported
> >> Wikibooks with structured data about the books and its chapters" etc.,
> >> but
> >> at some point you need to weigh implementation effort and cost and the
> >> expected benefit)
> >>
> >>
> > Wikibooks (user-generated text-books) is a special case, a bit different
> > from Wikisource (digital versions of existing sources).
> > However both can be treated in a similar way. I agree that the potential
> > benefit of linking chapters wouldn't be that high.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Micru
> >
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikim

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Jane Darnell]

I was thinking about items vs properties and Commons. I am not sure a
"F" entity is necessary. In theory, each file on Commons can be linked
to another one, and each item on WikiData can be linked to another
one, but those links do not necessarily need to interconnect with
Commons. If a Commons file is not the "best promoted image" of a
certain WikiData item, then in my mind it does not need to be in
WikiData.

Here is an example of what I mean:
This is an image of an engraving of Dirk van Hoogstraten:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dirk_van_hoogstraten_by_arnold_houbraken.JPG
He has a WikiData (person) item that could link to that image here:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5280895
The image file is derived from this file:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schouburg_I_Plate_I_Leonard_Bramer_-_Dirk_van_Hoogstraten_-_Salomon_de_Bray.jpg
which is a page from a 3-volume book about artists that has a WikiData
(book) item (that could use the titlepage of the first volume as
linked image). The picture of Hoogstraten on that page was also used
later by another engraver in a later book about artists:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schouburg_I_Plate_I_Leonard_Bramer_-_Dirk_van_Hoogstraten_-_Salomon_de_Bray.jpg

This second book also has a Wikidata (book) item, and the authors of
both books have WikiData (person) items, and so do the engravers of
the original engravings. If the original drawing of Dirk Hoogstraten
ever comes to light, then that image could be promoted to "best image
of Dirk Hoogstraten", and this one can remain on commons, but does not
need to be linked to WikiData, or do you think there is a need for
this file to have its own "F" status in WikiData?

2013/6/21, David Cuenca :
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Denny Vrandečić <
> denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
>> I agree that the different projects have different requirements. But I
>> think we should strive for a small number of "Wikidatas" - you could have
>> made the same argument for Commons, after all.
>>
>
> The two projects that might need it most are Wikivoyage (hotel/restaurant
> listings) and Wikiquote (semantic quotes), though in the end they could be
> included in Wikidata with different entity types.
> Wikisource is aligned with the existence of source items in Wikidata, so
> other than having a "S" namespace for sources (or not) and adapting the
> extension to work in Wikisource, there is not much need of development from
> the Wikidata side. See more here:
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikisource
>
>
>> Right now, I think there is a need for Commons to have better support for
>> data - we are working on a proposal text for that - and Wiktionary - as
>> it
>> is really a different system - needs some special treatments - we have
>> just
>> send a proposal text for that.
>>
>
> The Wiktionary proposal is a great start. I'm excited about the Commons
> proposal. It would be fabulous to have an "F" entity type for files :)
>
> (You can always go further and say "but it would be better if we supported
>> Wikibooks with structured data about the books and its chapters" etc.,
>> but
>> at some point you need to weigh implementation effort and cost and the
>> expected benefit)
>>
>>
> Wikibooks (user-generated text-books) is a special case, a bit different
> from Wikisource (digital versions of existing sources).
> However both can be treated in a similar way. I agree that the potential
> benefit of linking chapters wouldn't be that high.
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[David Cuenca]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Denny Vrandečić <
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> I agree that the different projects have different requirements. But I
> think we should strive for a small number of "Wikidatas" - you could have
> made the same argument for Commons, after all.
>

The two projects that might need it most are Wikivoyage (hotel/restaurant
listings) and Wikiquote (semantic quotes), though in the end they could be
included in Wikidata with different entity types.
Wikisource is aligned with the existence of source items in Wikidata, so
other than having a "S" namespace for sources (or not) and adapting the
extension to work in Wikisource, there is not much need of development from
the Wikidata side. See more here:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wikisource


> Right now, I think there is a need for Commons to have better support for
> data - we are working on a proposal text for that - and Wiktionary - as it
> is really a different system - needs some special treatments - we have just
> send a proposal text for that.
>

The Wiktionary proposal is a great start. I'm excited about the Commons
proposal. It would be fabulous to have an "F" entity type for files :)

(You can always go further and say "but it would be better if we supported
> Wikibooks with structured data about the books and its chapters" etc., but
> at some point you need to weigh implementation effort and cost and the
> expected benefit)
>
>
Wikibooks (user-generated text-books) is a special case, a bit different
from Wikisource (digital versions of existing sources).
However both can be treated in a similar way. I agree that the potential
benefit of linking chapters wouldn't be that high.

Cheers,
Micru
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Thomas Douillard]

Actually you got to have an item to make use of wikidata properties. I
think we are making too much of a deal to get or not to get an item in
Wikidata. An item just identify something, whether or not this something is
important to knowledge or not.


2013/6/20 Jane Darnell 

> I don't see each file on Commons having its own WikiData item, but I
> do think each subject of files should have their own item (and some,
> but not all of them, may also have their own wikipedia pages). These
> files on Commons could make use of properties on wikidata like "is
> designed by", "is a copy of", "is an example of", "is the best image
> of" or something like that. When the work is a sculpture or a garden
> and there are many photos, it would be nice to promote one of them to
> "best choice image" for some works, this way you can easily replace
> photos across many Wikipedia's for some of the great pictures coming
> in with efforts like "Wiki Loves Monuments".
>
> Similarly, I don't think each poem or each book should have its own
> WikiData item, but I think each first edition should have its own
> item, and all other editions should be able to link to it, regardless
> of translated versions and so on. I see WikiSource and WikiBooks as
> the same in this respect.
>
> 2013/6/20, Martynas Jusevičius :
> > You probably mean Linked Data?
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:41 PM, David Cuenca  wrote:
> >> While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people
> from
> >> sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it
> >> should
> >> have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the
> views
> >> because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are
> >> high,
> >> in my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is
> >> deployed to sister projects.
> >>
> >> There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what
> >> sister
> >> projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than
> just
> >> by
> >> installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion between
> >> the
> >> need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that Wikidata
> >> embodies that technology, but I don't think all problems can be
> approached
> >> by the same centralized tool. At least not from the social side of it.
> >> Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for
> >> each
> >> bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are
> they
> >> relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata was
> >> initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses.
> >> However, the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.
> >>
> >> It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well
> be a
> >> central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population
> >> data, etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that
> >> requires it. For instance there could be a data.wikiquote.org, a
> >> data.wikivoyage.org, etc that would cater for the needs of each
> community,
> >> that I predict will increase as soon as the benefits become clear, and
> of
> >> course linked to the central Wikidata whenever needed. Even Commons
> could
> >> be
> >> "wikidatized" with each file becoming an item and having different
> labels
> >> representing the file name depending on the language version being
> >> accessed.
> >>
> >> Could be this the right direction to go?
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Micru
> >>
> >> ___
> >> 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
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Jane Darnell]

I don't see each file on Commons having its own WikiData item, but I
do think each subject of files should have their own item (and some,
but not all of them, may also have their own wikipedia pages). These
files on Commons could make use of properties on wikidata like "is
designed by", "is a copy of", "is an example of", "is the best image
of" or something like that. When the work is a sculpture or a garden
and there are many photos, it would be nice to promote one of them to
"best choice image" for some works, this way you can easily replace
photos across many Wikipedia's for some of the great pictures coming
in with efforts like "Wiki Loves Monuments".

Similarly, I don't think each poem or each book should have its own
WikiData item, but I think each first edition should have its own
item, and all other editions should be able to link to it, regardless
of translated versions and so on. I see WikiSource and WikiBooks as
the same in this respect.

2013/6/20, Martynas Jusevičius :
> You probably mean Linked Data?
>
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:41 PM, David Cuenca  wrote:
>> While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people from
>> sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it
>> should
>> have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the views
>> because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are
>> high,
>> in my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is
>> deployed to sister projects.
>>
>> There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what
>> sister
>> projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than just
>> by
>> installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion between
>> the
>> need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that Wikidata
>> embodies that technology, but I don't think all problems can be approached
>> by the same centralized tool. At least not from the social side of it.
>> Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for
>> each
>> bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are they
>> relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata was
>> initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses.
>> However, the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.
>>
>> It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well be a
>> central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population
>> data, etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that
>> requires it. For instance there could be a data.wikiquote.org, a
>> data.wikivoyage.org, etc that would cater for the needs of each community,
>> that I predict will increase as soon as the benefits become clear, and of
>> course linked to the central Wikidata whenever needed. Even Commons could
>> be
>> "wikidatized" with each file becoming an item and having different labels
>> representing the file name depending on the language version being
>> accessed.
>>
>> Could be this the right direction to go?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Micru
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Martynas Jusevičius]

You probably mean Linked Data?

On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:41 PM, David Cuenca  wrote:
> While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people from
> sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it should
> have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the views
> because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are high,
> in my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is
> deployed to sister projects.
>
> There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what sister
> projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than just by
> installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion between the
> need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that Wikidata
> embodies that technology, but I don't think all problems can be approached
> by the same centralized tool. At least not from the social side of it.
> Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for each
> bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are they
> relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata was
> initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses.
> However, the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.
>
> It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well be a
> central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population
> data, etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that
> requires it. For instance there could be a data.wikiquote.org, a
> data.wikivoyage.org, etc that would cater for the needs of each community,
> that I predict will increase as soon as the benefits become clear, and of
> course linked to the central Wikidata whenever needed. Even Commons could be
> "wikidatized" with each file becoming an item and having different labels
> representing the file name depending on the language version being accessed.
>
> Could be this the right direction to go?
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Denny Vrandečić]

I agree that the different projects have different requirements. But I
think we should strive for a small number of "Wikidatas" - you could have
made the same argument for Commons, after all.

Right now, I think there is a need for Commons to have better support for
data - we are working on a proposal text for that - and Wiktionary - as it
is really a different system - needs some special treatments - we have just
send a proposal text for that.

For the other projects, access to (one central) Wikidata and the clients be
able to access arbitrary information from Wikidata on any page should be
sufficient for many use cases.

(You can always go further and say "but it would be better if we supported
Wikibooks with structured data about the books and its chapters" etc., but
at some point you need to weigh implementation effort and cost and the
expected benefit)

Cheers,
Denny




2013/6/11 David Cuenca 

> While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people from
> sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it should
> have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the views
> because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are high,
> in my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is
> deployed to sister projects.
>
> There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what
> sister projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than
> just by installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion
> between the need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that
> Wikidata embodies that technology, but I don't think all problems can be
> approached by the same centralized tool. At least not from the social side
> of it.
> Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for
> each bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are
> they relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata
> was initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses.
> However, the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.
>
> It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well be a
> central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population
> data, etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that
> requires it. For instance there could be a data.wikiquote.org, a
> data.wikivoyage.org, etc that would cater for the needs of each
> community, that I predict will increase as soon as the benefits become
> clear, and of course linked to the central Wikidata whenever needed. Even
> Commons could be "wikidatized" with each file becoming an item and having
> different labels representing the file name depending on the language
> version being accessed.
>
> Could be this the right direction to go?
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>


-- 
Project director Wikidata
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Romaine Wiki]

Hello GerardM,

Interwikis between categories and disambiguation pages serve a purpose, they 
form a navigational structure to enable people to find information. Certainly 
navigational pages make information also reachable. I use them, many other 
users use the interwikilinks, and so on. 

Romaine


--- On Tue, 6/11/13, Gerard Meijssen  wrote:

From: Gerard Meijssen 
Subject: Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?
To: "Discussion list for the Wikidata project." 
Date: Tuesday, June 11, 2013, 8:10 PM

Hoi,
The initial application for Wikidata is to replace the interwiki links of 
Wikipedia. Arguably many of the interwiki links do not serve a purpose. In my 
opinion there is no need for interwiki linking disambiguation pages or 
categories. I fail to see the value in these.



Having links to Wikivoyage or Wikibooks or Wikisource can have an application. 
Making use of Wikidata to add tags to Commons is an application that would 
REALLY help Commons gain usability.

Given that Wikidata is NOT Wikipedia, the requirements of notability are not 
necessarily requirements that are relevant in the Wikidata context.


Thanks,
 GerardM


On 11 June 2013 20:41, David Cuenca  wrote:


While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people from 
sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it should 
have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the views 
because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are high, in 
my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is deployed 
to sister projects.







There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what sister 
projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than just by 
installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion between the 
need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that Wikidata embodies 
that technology, but I don't think all problems can be approached by the same 
centralized tool. At least not from the social side of it.






Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for each 
bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are they 
relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata was 
initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses. However, 
the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.







It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well be a 
central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population data, 
etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that requires it. For 
instance there could be a data.wikiquote.org, a data.wikivoyage.org, etc that 
would cater for the needs of each community, that I predict will increase as 
soon as the benefits become clear, and of course linked to the central Wikidata 
whenever needed. Even Commons could be "wikidatized" with each file becoming an 
item and having different labels representing the file name depending on the 
language version being accessed.





Could be this the right direction to go?

Cheers,
Micru



___

Wikidata-l mailing list

Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org

https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l





-Inline Attachment Follows-

___
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

Re: [Wikidata-l] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The initial application for Wikidata is to replace the interwiki links of
Wikipedia. Arguably many of the interwiki links do not serve a purpose. In
my opinion there is no need for interwiki linking disambiguation pages or
categories. I fail to see the value in these.

Having links to Wikivoyage or Wikibooks or Wikisource can have an
application. Making use of Wikidata to add tags to Commons is an
application that would REALLY help Commons gain usability.

Given that Wikidata is NOT Wikipedia, the requirements of notability are
not necessarily requirements that are relevant in the Wikidata context.
Thanks,
 GerardM


On 11 June 2013 20:41, David Cuenca  wrote:

> While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people from
> sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it should
> have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the views
> because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are high,
> in my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is
> deployed to sister projects.
>
> There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what
> sister projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than
> just by installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion
> between the need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that
> Wikidata embodies that technology, but I don't think all problems can be
> approached by the same centralized tool. At least not from the social side
> of it.
> Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for
> each bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are
> they relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata
> was initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses.
> However, the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.
>
> It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well be a
> central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population
> data, etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that
> requires it. For instance there could be a data.wikiquote.org, a
> data.wikivoyage.org, etc that would cater for the needs of each
> community, that I predict will increase as soon as the benefits become
> clear, and of course linked to the central Wikidata whenever needed. Even
> Commons could be "wikidatized" with each file becoming an item and having
> different labels representing the file name depending on the language
> version being accessed.
>
> Could be this the right direction to go?
>
> Cheers,
> Micru
>
> ___
> 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] Is an ecosystem of Wikidatas possible?

[David Cuenca]

While on the Hackathon I had the opportunity to talk with some people from
sister projects about how they view Wikidata and the relationship it should
have to sister projects. Probably you are already familiar with the views
because they have been presented already several times. The hopes are high,
in my opinion too high, about what can be accomplished when Wikidata is
deployed to sister projects.

There are conflicting needs about what belongs into Wikidata and what
sister projects need, and that divide it is far greater to be overcome than
just by installing the extension. In fact, I think there is a confusion
between the need for Wikidata and the need for structured data. True that
Wikidata embodies that technology, but I don't think all problems can be
approached by the same centralized tool. At least not from the social side
of it.
Wikiquote could have one item for each quote, or Wikivoyage an item for
each bar, hostel, restaurant, etc..., and the question will always be: are
they relevant enough to be created in Wikidata? Considering that Wikidata
was initially thought for Wikipedia, that scope wouldn't allow those uses.
However, the structured data needs could be covered in other ways.

It doesn't need to be a big wikidata addressing it all. It could well be a
central Wikidata addressing common issues (like author data, population
data, etc), plus other Wikidata installs on each sister project that
requires it. For instance there could be a data.wikiquote.org, a
data.wikivoyage.org, etc that would cater for the needs of each community,
that I predict will increase as soon as the benefits become clear, and of
course linked to the central Wikidata whenever needed. Even Commons could
be "wikidatized" with each file becoming an item and having different
labels representing the file name depending on the language version being
accessed.

Could be this the right direction to go?

Cheers,
Micru
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l