How do we decide whether to promote a creator to a "source"? #2711
Replies: 2 comments 8 replies
-
I don't think we have any general guidelines for adding "sources". We do have a DAG1 that checks all Flickr Commons participating institutions, and suggest adding ones that we don't already use as "source" (or "sub_provider" in the catalog) with at least 300 items with CC0, PDM or CC licenses. We also had a check for Europeana "sub_providers" that was retired. For context, here is a list of all "sub_providers" in the catalog:
Does the current criterion sound good: A notable (GLAM) creator that has more than 300 items can be extracted as a source ? What are the core effective differences between a "source" and a "highlighted creator"? Is there any difference, really?
When I first read this discussion, I thought that a "source" is not usually a creator, but an institution. Then I checked Flickr - and it seems that most of the "sources" are also marked as "creators". However, some Smithsonian sources do not have this 1:1 relationship between the creator and a source. Here's one of such examples: https://openverse.org/image/61f31a70-5484-4233-95ab-9298e78ebee8?q=cat (the creator is probably extracted incorrectly, and also doesn't have a creator_url even though it is available on the source site). Footnotes
|
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
While reviewing a PR for Europeana script, I realized that we need to promote many of the institutions there to sources. Europeana is an "integrator" that collects data from many GLAM institutions all over Europe, and many of them do fit the criteria above (more than 300 items with an open license or marked with CC0 or PDM). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Some GLAM or research institutions have their own "source" page, like NASA. How do we decide when to create such a source? There are heaps of "sources" that rely on Flickr, like Boston Public Library or even niche ones like New South Wales grassy ecosystems.
How do we decide when to turn a creator into a "source"? Do we have a policy about this? Is it restricted to special-interest societies like NASA or a GLAM institution? Would something like the NSW grassy ecosystems page be a source?
From a search perspective, maybe it's not as important, but from a perspective of making these sources discoverable, I could see that being an interesting angle. For someone wanting to contribute to the commons, maybe if they've got pictures of NSW grassy ecosystems they'd like to know they can contribute to a place that will help them describe the images with accurate metadata?
Just looking for ideas of how we can think about this in the future. Places like Boston Public Library (as an example, other GLAM institutions too) fall in line with our existing patterns, but how do we actually make the decision to create these as "sources"? Is it possible for us to do so without needing to backport the data into the catalogue? What are the core effective differences between a "source" and a "highlighted creator"? Is there any difference, really? Is it possible for a source to have multiple creators? Maybe I'm assuming that there is a 1:1 relationship between a creator of a provider and what we call a "source".
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions