Hoi,
The use case I was thinking of was to include the images that exist for
instance on English Wikipedia. Flickr and other repositories outside the
WMF are very much out of scope as far as I am concerned.
In my opinion it is silly to associate information about media files with
the media file itself. The objective is to search for an image of a "horse"
and every image of a "horse" should be included NEVER MIND where the file
is "located". When the result is to be restricted to freely licensed
images, all images should be included NEVER MIND where the file is
"located".
NB I love to understand why I am wrong in this.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 6 September 2014 10:48, P. Blissenbach <pu...@web.de> wrote:
> Hi
>
> (1)
> If we want to include media files not on commons, then we shall have to
> "include" data from foreign sources such as flickr or other types of
> repositories. We must do so without stealing or damaging the authority of
> these others. If we connect items to media linking them, or if we assign
> tags, labels, attributes, etc. to foreign media, or make statements
> involving them, we can do so of course collaboratively, but we cannot
> assume other communities to cooperate. Often they will, occasionally they
> will, not and the latter should not be a hindrance.
>
> (2)
> Assuming we are incorporating labels, tags and statements (claims) made in
> other repositories in additioni to simple and obvious technical
> information, we shall have to decide about incorporating the thesaurii,
> tagging systems, ontlogies, or whatever they use, first.
>
> (3)
> Much less complicated imho is the initial step to make files on commons
> and on other WMF wikis available for searches via WikiData. The goal has to
> be, imho, that everything we "know" already about them is to be converted
> into statements and made available to search queries. Since that involves
> reading descriptions and turning them into statements about media, we get a
> finer grained categorizing or tagging system than we have today. Itwill
> automatically become more multilingual as data grows. I currently believe
> that conversion from existing data has at least partially to be done
> semiautomatically, likely with suggestor bots, that e.g. ask questions like
> "Is this cat: o Black, o Brown, o White, o Tigered, ... o Not a cat at all"
> or "In this sample, you hear the voice of a: o Female, o Male, o Child, o
> Cannot tell, o Several voices, o No voice at all, ...". That would allow to
> add considerable volumes missing data in little time, startig from
> categories existing in the wikis.
>
> (4)
> Searching should most of the time be a matter of making statements about
> what you want to find. Basic logical operations need to be availabe so as
> to limit unwieldy result sets, plus additional stepwise refinements.
> Semantic Mediawiki or Wolfram Alpha or Library Catalog Search Engines
> already have many of those ;-)
>
> Purodha
>
> "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> writes:
>
> Hoi,
> I am really interested how you envision searching when all those topics
> are isolated and attached to each file..
>
> I also am really interested to know when you have all those files isolated
> on Commons, how you will include media files that are NOT on Commons.. This
> is a normal use case.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 3 September 2014 15:33, James Heald <j.he...@ucl.ac.uk> wrote:Not
> really relevant.
>
> The way that this will be achieved will be a "topics" list attached to
> each file, each topic being a pointer to a Wikidata item.
>
> Sure, Wikidata may be used as one of the sources to help build the topics
> list; but the topics list will not be on Wikidata, but attached to each
> file, probably on the CommonsData wikibase.
>
> -- James.
>
>
> On 03/09/2014 14:28, P. Blissenbach wrote:I strongly support this view:
> Wikidata should support and ease finding Commons-images.
> This is not only about proper categorising and tagging in a true
> multilingual way,
> but also about determining and assigning various properties - both
> automatically and
> manually.
>
> Think for example like an art director creating an image flyer (be it
> about Wikimania,
> a national open source movement, or a company) looking for photograhps
> "predominantly blue"
> depicing "8 humans or more" of "various ages" in a "neutral or
> indeterminate environent"
> and so on, so as to get the hang of it.
>
> Purodha
>
>
> "Gerard Meijssen" <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com[gerard.meijs...@gmail.com]>
> writes:
>
> Hoi,
> I am firmly opposed to the idea that the Wikidatification of Commons is
> about Commons. That is imho a disaster.
>
> It is about mediafiles and they exist in many Wikis.
>
> The categories of Commons are in and off themselves useful to a very
> limited extend. Associating the images they refer to with existing items in
> Wikidata is one way in which they may be useful. As it is, because of
> naming conventions and the use of English only, the categories are pretty
> lame. They do not help me when I am looking for an image in Commons at all.
>
> Really my point is forget about Commons notability start thinking in terms
> of "what does it take to help people find images". Yes, those people will
> be 8 years old and they may speak Mandarin or Japanese.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
>
> On 3 September 2014 12:05, James Heald <j.he...@ucl.ac.uk[
> j.he...@ucl.ac.uk]> wrote:Gerard,
>
> I agree with you that I would like the kind of tools currently available
> with WikiData also to be available on CommonsData.
>
> Queries that combine the two in an integrated way ought to be made simple
> and straightforward.
>
> What I don't understand is your objection to placing items that really
> only have a Commons notability, not a world notability, into a specific
> namespace, or (notionally) the separate database CommonsData, so that it is
> possible to run those queries that only relate to Commons information
> solely on CommonsData, and those queries that only relate to world
> information solely on WikiData.
>
> Does that not make more sense, than requiring the full bulk of the
> combined database to always be addressed in order to run any query?
>
> -- James.
>
>
>
> On 01/09/2014 07:07, Gerard Meijssen wrote:Hoi,
> Wikidata is very much a "working database". Its relevance is exactly
> because of this. Without the connection to the interwiki links, it would
> not be the same, it would not have the coverage and it would not have the
> same sized community.
>
> Considerations about secondary use are secondary. Yes, people may use it
> for their own purposes and when it fits their needs, well and good. When it
> does not, that is fine too. As it is, we do have all kind of Wiki "junk" in
> there. We have disambiguation pages, list articles, templates, categories.
> The challenge is to find a use for them.
>
> When I add statements based on categories, I "document" many categories
> [1]. As a result over 900 items for categories will show the result of a
> query in the Reasonator. The results is what I think a category could
> contain given the subject of a category. For Wikipedians they are articles
> not categorised, red links and blue links.
>
> There are several reasons why this is not (yet) a perfect fit. The most
> obvious one is including articles that are not part of the selection eg a
> list in a category full of humans. Currently not everything can be
> expressed in a way that allows Reasonator to pick things up in a query..
> dates come to mind. Then there are the categories that have an "arbitrary"
> set of entries.
>
> I am not going to speculate on what kind of qualifiers Commons will come up
> with. In essence when you can sort it / select it Wikidata will do a better
> job for you. The "only" thing we have to do is identify the items that fit
> the mold. This is something that you can often find the basis for in
> existing categories.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
>
> [1]
>
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/08/wikidata-my-workflow-enriching-wikidata.html[http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/08/wikidata-my-workflow-enriching-wikidata.html][http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/08/wikidata-my-workflow-enriching-wikidata.html%5Bhttp://ultimategerardm.blogspot.nl/2014/08/wikidata-my-workflow-enriching-wikidata.html%5D]
>
>
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist.html?q=CLAIM%5B31%3A4167836%5D%20AND%20CLAIM%5B360%3A5%5D%20
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org][
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org]]
>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l_______________________________________________[https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l_______________________________________________]
> Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l[https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l][https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l%5Bhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l%5D]
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org[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[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
