[Commons-l] [Foundation-l] UMP Convention - what about semantic mediawiki

Thu Oct 5 23:51:59 UTC 2006

sorry wasn't registered

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Brian W <bawolff at gmail.com>
Date: Oct 5, 2006 5:26 PM
Subject: Re: [Commons-l] [Foundation-l] UMP Convention - what about
semantic mediawiki
To: Wikimedia Commons Discussion List <commons-l at wikimedia.org>

On wikinews, we were talking about using semantic mediawiki a bit ago
[ http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/semantic_MediaWiki and
http://wiki.ontoworld.org/index.php ] . I think that, that extention
would be perfect for commons and would fix many issues you talked
about, specificly picture keyword (bearing in mind that I have very
limited knowladge about the
extention and may be wrong on that)

--
- Bawolff
Caution: The mass of this product contains the energy equivalent of 85
million tons of TNT per net ounce of weight.

On 10/5/06, David Gerard <dgerard at gmail.com> wrote:
> I just wrote the following in a message on Wikimedia/Wikipedia
> popularity to foundation-l:
>
> > In stock photos: Commons has I understand plans for much better
> > categorisation. The plans to make categories in MediaWiki work more
> > like tags will help (if they can ever work around MySQL being
> > basically crap at it without reworking the entire wiki engine). You
> > describe Commons to a journalist and they go "oh, like Getty Images?"
> > and you answer "yep, we're nothing like there yet but we want
> > something that good." Where "good" means an editor in a hurry can
> > search Commons, find a pic and slap it in the paper labeled "(c)
> > Photographer, reusable under cc-by-sa." You would, with a moment's
> > thought, see just *how much* press editors would love something like
> > that they don't have to pay Getty Images rates for.
>
>
> The conversation came from one particular journalist and watching his
> eyes light up at the idea of a free photo repository that was any
> bloody good.
>
> So. I've never used Getty Images or a similar stock photo database.
>
> * What does Commons need in terms of indexing to be that *usable*?
> * How are we for subject area coverage? (I have no idea what searches
> are popular.)
> * Do we have a list of taglines print editors can slap on photos and
> be working within the licence? Shorter the better, obviously.
> ("Working within the license" here meaning that it would be clear to a
> judge that when the paper put the photographer's name and "Reusable
> under Creative Commons cc-by-sa 1/2/2.5" they were communicating it
> enough for any sensible person and not even the most querulous
> cc-by-sa user would have a real case. Though that's  verging on
> lawyering without a licence. But anyway.)
>
> etc. What question have I missed? What do we need to be a useful image
> repository for consumers such as commercial print media? Imagine that
> much open content circulating, and spreading the notion of openness
> ...
>
>
> - d.
> _______________________________________________
> Commons-l mailing list
> Commons-l at wikimedia.org
> http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/commons-l
>