1 -  Commons file information is actually more accurate with greater detail compared to flickr images we have a greater degree of scrutiny ensuring that the images are appropriate and freely licensed, also our scope isnt that of flickr and we seek more images of record/encyclopaedic relevance. I have already contacted PA on a number of occassion with errors in identifications and spelling on image they already have

2 - All of our images are under a free license in accordance with both policies and Australian laws the image source is listed, we can filter out image from other sources by just creating another category call "Picture Australia" and setting up its scope of being self made Australian images. As PA sources include libraries they already have a number of duplicated images, many of which dont even have the same description.

3 - There are already bots/scripts available that can identify recent additions, and there are some good OS writers so having something created to do the work shouldnt be a big issue its just a matter of finding someone willing. Of course this would be an open source program which PA could use else where in the future

4. - a Picture Australia category, and the software written to aquire images from that category inparticular and from other categories in particular wouldnt be a problem

2009/2/3 Liam Wyatt <liamwyatt-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org>

Dear All,

[cross post to commons-l and wikimediaaustralia-l]

Picture Australia is interested in adding Commons photos to their service but has several technical issues they would like to resolve first. Can we help?

Picture Australia is an archive aggregation service run by the National Library of Australia and aggregates searches across many Australian institutions (such as the various state libraries, universities, government departments) and also Flickr. You can see the project at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/index.html and you can see their other contributors at http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/participants/index.html

This is a quote from the email written to me from PA:
At the moment our main source of contemporary images is Flickr and we are interested in investigating other sources of contemporary images.  There are a few issues with the Wikimedia Commons that we foresee:

1- the metadata quality is highly variable.  With Flickr contributors are able to provide a fair bit of additional metadata about their images.  Before  pulling images in from Wikipedia we'd need the data to adhere to some basic standards.  (see http://www.pictureaustralia.org/contribute/metadata.html).

2- there are certainly a number of images that have been sourced from Picture Australia or our contributors.  Pulling these in would create an issue with duplicate images and would likely confuse users if they were attempting to buy a copy.

3- Wikipedia doesn't have an OAI interface so we would need to look at how to ingest the data.

I would add a 4th concern, and I'm not sure if this is a big problem or easily fixed, is that most of the pictures on Commons are not relevant to PA. Would we be able to provide a feed of only the relevant categories?

All the best,
- Liam Wyatt

--
Email - liamwyatt <at> gmail.com
Phone - +61 (0)434 056 914
Skype - Wittylama
Wikipedia - [[User:Witty lama]]

_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DM0B+6BGkLq7r@public.gmane.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l

--
GN.
http://gnangarra.redbubble.com/

Hi all,

As you are probably aware, enabling reuse is an important part of
Wikimedia Commons' mission. We do this for humans by clearly
indicating licenses and author information (that's the theory, anyway
:)). But we also need to do it for machines, because it is machines
that allow reuse of our material on a much larger scale, e.g. by
libraries, museums, and other archives.

Currently the data we provide for machines in quite poor. Although it
is quite easy for a human to look and see that {{GFDL}} is a license
template, for machines it is much harder because there is no
"standard" that says which templates represent licenses and which
represent other things. Figuring out who the author is, for
attribution purposes, is also often difficult (is it the uploader?
what if someone uploaded a slightly edited version?). As an example,
PediaPress would like to use this information, for their printed
wiki-books, to put the licenses of the images. At the moment there is
literally no way they could do this reliably without having a human do
it for every single image.

Anyway, it is my strong belief that for Wikimedia Commons to be more
successful and more useful, we need a way of encoding this kind of
information in a machine-readable format. There are a number of
different approaches one could take, but I think it is better if we
just ask the developers for any extension/feature which will do this
job, and let them figure out which is most appropriate.

If you agree, please sign
<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Request_for_extension_to_provide_metadata_support>
 and indicate your support for helping Wikimedia Commons material
reach a wider audience. ***Community support is a necessary condition
to get a feature like this enabled.*** So please speak up if you want
to support this idea, by signing the page.

<http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Request_for_extension_to_provide_metadata_support>

thanks!

Brianna

--
They've just been waiting in a mountain for the right moment:
http://modernthings.org/

_______________________________________________
Commons-l mailing list
Commons-l-RusutVdil2icGmH+5r0DMw@public.gmane.orgorg
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l