Wikidata:WP EMEW/Map uploads/SDC and IIIF

Map uploads

 

Discuss

 

Progress

 

Data modelling

 

SDC and IIIF

 

Horizon

 

More maps

 

Issues

 


IIIF logo
logo of the Structured Data for Commons project

Introduction goes here

Capabilities of the map-IIIF toolchain edit

What are the elements and capabilities Bert's map-IIIF toolchain, that makes map-IIIF an enticing prospect to target for old map data (control points, annotations, georeferencing fits, etc).

Things for a IIIF map client to be able to do edit

  • Composite together IIIF layers that may be in different projections -- eg Airy-1830/OSGB36 vs GRS80/WGS84/ETRS89 (re-projection, vector and raster)
  • Take control-points in two coordinate system to estimate a transformation between them

...

map-IIIF as a data interchange format edit

value edit

puts into sharper focus what sort of info it may be useful for SDC to be able to export to IIIF

SDC and IIIF edit

phab:T275286 -- the value of these uploads as a test-set for Commons SDC, and for Commons SDC -> IIIF manifest

Rich target to pursue edit

Consider manifest 1 made directly be IIIF, or manifest 2 made by Commons : how close can we get them to be?

  • Viae Regiae -> map-IIIF #1
  • Viae Regiae -> Commons + SDC + Control points -> map-IIIF #2

ie: Can we design a data model on Commons with SDC that can retain as much of the information needed to make as an informative IIIF manifest as the one made directly ? How close can we get ?

SDC -> IIIF conversion edit

Trust in Lucas? d:User:Lucas_Werkmeister/Wikidata_Image_Positions:
display of statements with relative position within image (P2677) qualifiers: https://wd-image-positions.toolforge.org/item/Q1231009
IIIF manifest export: https://iiif.si.edu/mirador/?manifest=https://wd-image-positions.toolforge.org/iiif/Q1231009/P18/manifest.json

SDC model edit

What else will we need to be able to store to match the information in the annotations created by VR natively ?
eg likely region within image (P8276).. and what more?
How do those kinds of statements turn into IIIF annotations?
(plus: is the current spec for the contents of the data-value well chosen (esp P8276). Are refinements needed for a better/easier fit? Is P8276 out much in the wild?

IIIF manifest and collection architecture edit

How should WM architect its IIIF manifests and collections, in relation to the different kinds of objects and structures on Commons (and non-Commons)
eg thinking-out-loud threads posted in Oct to IIIF-discuss: thread 1, thread 2

SDC -> IIIF needs of others ? edit

Other potential annotation user-needs ? edit

Other than for old maps, what else might GLAMs need to support, for SDC to be able to contain the info that they want, to recreate annotations as they need them ?
A sort-of IIIF+GLAM scoping / requirements / facilitation brief phab:T261621 was announced for WM-SE in Sept 2020, but according to David Haskiya this may have been over-interpreted. (tweet)
A official ticket was raised in Jan 2019 for (UI?) design phab:T214405 for an SDC-based annotator. But this was put on ice in March 2020.
As with much of the SDC process, it would seem to be up to the community to identify data needs and modelling. Identifying what is needed for old maps may fulfil at least some of the requirements.

People edit

WMF edit

  • Unclear who at the moment is the point person for SDC-GLAM-IIIF
API team announced plan to develop support for (part of) IIIF API in September, but API team leader has since moved on
WM-SE had brief to look into GLAM-IIIF requirements (phab:T261621), but point person has also moved on. Unclear if brief still exists.
WMF GLAM team tends to be more focused on relationships than engineering

Users edit

Links edit

  • https://allmaps.org -- Bert's map-IIIF toolchain
  • phab:T275286 -- the value of these uploads as a test-set for Commons SDC, and for Commons SDC -> IIIF manifest

JH TODO edit

  • Get a clearer idea of who may be working with the MapWarper code, and where