Wikidata:Property proposal/Numérisé par

digitised by[edit]

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Creative work

Done: digitised by (P8791) (Talk and documentation)

Description	institution who proceed with digitisation of one exemplar of this item. Qualify with "criterion used" (P1013) to indicate which step was done.
Represents	digitization (Q843958)
Data type	Item
Domain	intellectual work (Q15621286)
Allowed values	organization (Q43229)
Example 1	(movie) Yol (Q683020) → Swiss Film Archive (Q688143) (https://memoriav.ch/projects/yol/?lang=fr)
Example 2	(video art) A Tribute To John Cage (Q22271827) → Kunsthaus Zürich (Q685038) (http://memobase.ch/fr#document/KH_ZH-1982_0002)
Example 3	(text) Le Roman de la Rose (Q642211) → Cantonal library and library of the university of Lausanne (Q676831) (https://e-codices.unifr.ch/fr/searchresult/list/one/bcul/M0454)

Motivation[edit]

Currently most of Heritage institutions must be careful about the money invest in digitalisation. We would except that the same document (Q49848) (ex: work of art (Q838948)) won't be digitalised several time. Wikidata could help for that. At the level Work, qualifier applies to part (P518) could redirect to the Edition of the work or the Item digitalised if it's already existing in Wikidata. 2le2im-bdc (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Notified participants of WikiProject Visual arts WikiProject sum of all paintings has more than 50 participants and couldn't be pinged. Please post on the WikiProject's talk page instead.--2le2im-bdc (talk) 21:00, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notified participants of WikiProject Movies

Notified participants of WikiProject Archival Description --2le2im-bdc (talk) 21:08, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support --2le2im-bdc (talk) 04:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the level should maybe be clarified: for books, we never digitized the intangible work bu always a material and specific edition or item. But at any level, this property would be very useful. Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, for books it is a specific Edition, Manifestation and Item that is digitised, so the domain should allow version, edition or translation (Q3331189), which is a subclass of work (Q386724) but not of intellectual work (Q15621286). To me, the applies to part (P518) as a qualifier feels inapt for this case. — Pelagic (talk) 20:13, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support useful. --Benoît (discussion) 06:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support valuable additional information Mianga (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Support Very good idea. --Deansfa (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support make sense. LaMèreVeille (talk) 17:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Thierry Caro (talk) 18:41, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Simon Villeneuve (talk) 21:53, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support NMaia (talk) 10:50, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Also in the purpose of providing useful criteria either for Heritage institutions to focus their digitalisation efforts, or to help readers to find those resources, maybe there's a need of some qualifiers to complement this property? From my anecdotal perspective as a layman who have recently found two digitalized versions of the same book, one had poor quality (low dpi, bad white balance, slanted lines of text), the other had rather good quality (rectified text, good white balance) and had an OCRified searchable text available. Also maybe in some jurisdictions the digitalized work would be put under a supplementary licence? Or the access would be restricted (by a fee? by required registering? or would only be available to researchers, to specific country residents ? or only at a library physical site, etc). I don't know which of those are relevant or easy to integrate though. --FoeNyx (talk) 16:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You are right @FoeNyx:. We have to develop the use of qualifiers. We can think to point in time (P585) and URL (P2699) or applies to part (P518), and color (P462) with for value : black-and-white (Q838368) or color (Q22006653). We need to research some others for the quality or the copyright.--2le2im-bdc (talk) 19:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support --Pierre Tribhou (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment interesting idea. How would we indicate who currently holds the physical, not yet digitized copy? This can be helpful for films where corresponding catalogues aren't always available on the web --- Jura 07:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the comment. We plan to use collection (P195) for the holder of the physical document.--2le2im-bdc (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For texts, as there is some gap between the "raw" numerical version and what may be found at Wikisource, how would we distinguish the two? --- Jura 07:17, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks a other time for the comment. We plan to use document file on Wikimedia Commons (P996) as qualifier for the link to Commons and Wikisource index page URL (P1957) also as qualifier for Wikisource.--2le2im-bdc (talk) 18:33, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - My question aims more on how to identify who did these steps of a full digitalisation process. We could have copies of each at Commons/Wikisource, but that doesn't tell us who did these steps. --- Jura 18:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @2le2im-bdc: criterion used (P1013) as a qualifier could solve that. Values could be "scan", "ocr", "transcription", "metadata for main parts" --- Jura 12:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I added that above. --- Jura 12:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]