@SandraF_WMF note I've been involved in the IIIF's A/V working group on extending the protocol to support audio and video, and have been at a few of the working group meetings for that. There's also a big IIIF working meeting in Toronto coming up in October; if there's serious interest I should probably pop in to that too, or else someone else from multimedia if there's interest in moving forward with stuff more directly.

There's also a big IIIF working meeting in Toronto coming up in October; if there's serious interest I should probably pop in to that too, or else someone else from multimedia if there's interest in moving forward with stuff more directly.

There's definitely interest in making Commons interoperable with IIIF. @Ramsey-WMF are any of your peeps planning on going? Can you work with Brion to determine who should go? SDC could send a person, if we think it's useful. Maybe next year would be more useful, given our roadmap?

In T173346#3836097, @Abit wrote:

There's also a big IIIF working meeting in Toronto coming up in October; if there's serious interest I should probably pop in to that too, or else someone else from multimedia if there's interest in moving forward with stuff more directly.

There's definitely interest in making Commons interoperable with IIIF. @Ramsey-WMF are any of your peeps planning on going? Can you work with Brion to determine who should go? SDC could send a person, if we think it's useful. Maybe next year would be more useful, given our roadmap?

If there's another conference/working meeting scheduled next year, we can potentially have someone from Multimedia go depending on timing/workload.

@Keegan, re T186197: Transition Community Liaison tasks to Keegan - I think it makes sense if I keep owning this task, as IIIF is very much a feature that is wanted by GLAMs. Let me know if you'd like to take over though!

Note there's some folks interested in IIIF/Wikimedia discussion from the IIIF end; some notes started recently on this doc: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lqtwd1rwUIck6nmetxtmQkzuTpgnwOSPREhH9YEjmHI/edit

@SandraF_WMF I added a few notes on that doc what I'm interested in from my end and what I cannot guarantee at this time given need to get resources to actually implement things. :) Feel free to get in touch.

A heads-up that "Wikipedia and IIIF" is the proposed subject for the IIIF community call this week -- see https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/iiif-discuss/wy2uRl_ukJ0

The IIIF community call is a one-hour conference call on Zoom (people can also dial in by telephone), that happens once every two weeks, with either a technical or a community focus -- see https://iiif.io/community/call/ .

This call will be in two days time, on Wednesday, the 15th of August, at mid-day Eastern time (ie 5pm London time, 6pm CET).

The scope will include all Wikimedia platforms (ie Commons, Wikidata, etc), and presentations can be included by prior arrangement. It might be good if someone from the structured data team could listen in, and perhaps present the team's thoughts for upcoming IIIF-compatible and accessible annotations (@SandraF_WMF ?)

Thanks for the heads-up, @Jheald - I can attend the meeting and have also alerted some colleagues to it!

At least one agenda item I'd like to put forward is: suggestions on how to let both communities communicate better (in a way that is not scattered, as is the case today, and so that the conversations can be found easily).

In T173346#4497764, @Jheald wrote:

A heads-up that "Wikipedia and IIIF" is the proposed subject for the IIIF community call this week -- see https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/iiif-discuss/wy2uRl_ukJ0

The IIIF community call is a one-hour conference call on Zoom (people can also dial in by telephone), that happens once every two weeks, with either a technical or a community focus -- see https://iiif.io/community/call/ .

This call will be in two days time, on Wednesday, the 15th of August, at mid-day Eastern time (ie 5pm London time, 6pm CET).

The scope will include all Wikimedia platforms (ie Commons, Wikidata, etc), and presentations can be included by prior arrangement. It might be good if someone from the structured data team could listen in, and perhaps present the team's thoughts for upcoming IIIF-compatible and accessible annotations (@SandraF_WMF ?)

Thanks @SandraF_WMF . I've started putting together some links at :c:User:Jheald/IIIF_180815 that I or Andy Mabbett could talk through, to give an idea of what sort of IIIF interaction is possible at the moment.

Would it be possible for you to take up from that, and add a bit more detail re possibilities with structured data, and for perhaps creating IIIF-friendly manifests with annotations ?

Would it be possible for you to take up from that, and add a bit more detail re possibilities with structured data, and for perhaps creating IIIF-friendly manifests with annotations ?

@brion is currently investigating if/how we could make Commons media compatible with the IIIF presentation layer, and will be sharing his work on this call as well.

In T173346#4497764, @Jheald wrote:

A heads-up that "Wikipedia and IIIF" is the proposed subject for the IIIF community call this week -- see https://groups.google.com/forum/?hl=en#!topic/iiif-discuss/wy2uRl_ukJ0

The call took place yesterday, and it was attended by @Jheald, @Pigsonthewing, @brion and me representing the Wikimedia side.

Jheald gave a great overview of the current status and tooling around IIIF on our projects and Brion provided an update on current work. I talked briefly about the planning for SDC General, a request for use cases and argumentation why strong IIIF integration on Wikimedia projects would be valuable for the IIIF community, and a plea to streamline communications better.

We also had attendance and a presentation by @YULdigitalpreservation's colleague Kenneth Seals-Nutt on their Wikidata- and IIIF-powered project http://sciencestories.io/.

The full recording of the talk is available here: https://stanford.zoom.us/recording/play/nLCZcXBE1FeISFo4T6HftDHcPipS7MTE7VIpEJ5n44tLgbuIX6ZvHYNU4Cii6hAE?startTime=1534349352000
Agenda and notes here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_QGZjyYR38HfDtqgoJ-Tc5kIZXkqCETBbeWbzlCRzFk/edit

Some outcomes and bits of interesting/relevant info:

• There is interest to start a IIIF and Wikimedia interest group. See https://iiif.io/community/groups/ - if you are interested in joining the to-be-created Wikimedia-specific group, get in touch with IIIF's technical coordinator Glen Robson (please ping me for his email address, I'm uncomfortable sharing it in public here)
• If you want to stay up to date on IIIF things, there is also a IIIF Slack with dedicated Wikimedia channel (you can request to be added here), a IIIF discussion list, and a lower traffic IIIF announcements list.

As I am working on a bit of on-wiki documentation anyway, I have taken the freedom to rearrange the page on Commons about IIIF a bit, to make it more digestable (I hope) to people new to IIIF and to non-Wikimedians.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:International_Image_Interoperability_Framework

Of course, feel free to modify anything!

Not sure if this is the right ticket for this information, but I'd like to note strong interest on two different occasions from two different people in the last month in a top-tier GLAM that I'm working with, about the possibility of being able to use Commons as an IIIF hosting service for high-resolution images, eg for serving tiles of old maps for geo-referencing to platforms that need to be able to access images from an IIIF service.

The GLAM is quite strapped for cash (or, at least, the relevant departments are), and they can get a much more affordable deal from the georeferencing platform if they can arrange their own image hosting, rather than having to copy all their images to the georeferencing company.

If we could offer this, that would significantly strengthen the business case within the GLAM for releasing best-quality high-resolution versions of their images to WikiCommons, rather than lower-resolution degraded versions -- a subject of significant current discussion and dispute within the organisation.

A couple of pre-requisites for this would be (i) the ability to offer a stable and fast IIIF service with strong reliability, and (ii) the ability to offer IIIF access to a particular revision of an image -- because any subsequent cropping or rotation or rescaling by a Commons user, however well-intentioned, would totally throw out the pixel-referenced georeferencing data.

BTW, I note that the current pilot service appears to be down again T206260, and has suffered from recurrent corruption problems T194956. I know that, myself, I have not been able to use zoom-viewer for any of the large old maps that I recently uploaded (example, example2), which doesn't help in showing off what I hope we would be able to offer.

Thanks James. It is extremely helpful and useful for us to know that this request has come up. In order to be able to make the case for core IIIF support in the future, we need plenty of evidence that this is a real need. It's telling that even a major GLAM in a country with relatively good cultural funding, like the UK (I assume?) expresses this request, and I would be interested to know about concrete cases from GLAMs in less-resourced countries.

In T173346#4661116, @Jheald wrote:

Not sure if this is the right ticket for this information, but I'd like to note strong interest on two different occasions from two different people in the last month in a top-tier GLAM that I'm working with, about the possibility of being able to use Commons as an IIIF hosting service for high-resolution images, eg for serving tiles of old maps for geo-referencing to platforms that need to be able to access images from an IIIF service.

The GLAM is quite strapped for cash (or, at least, the relevant departments are), and they can get a much more affordable deal from the georeferencing platform if they can arrange their own image hosting, rather than having to copy all their images to the georeferencing company.

If we could offer this, that would significantly strengthen the business case within the GLAM for releasing best-quality high-resolution versions of their images to WikiCommons, rather than lower-resolution degraded versions -- a subject of significant current discussion and dispute within the organisation.

A couple of pre-requisites for this would be (i) the ability to offer a stable and fast IIIF service with strong reliability, and (ii) the ability to offer IIIF access to a particular revision of an image -- because any subsequent cropping or rotation or rescaling by a Commons user, however well-intentioned, would totally throw out the pixel-referenced georeferencing data.

BTW, I note that the current pilot service appears to be down again T206260, and has suffered from recurrent corruption problems T194956. I know that, myself, I have not been able to use zoom-viewer for any of the large old maps that I recently uploaded (example, example2), which doesn't help in showing off what I hope we would be able to offer.

In T173346#4661116, @Jheald wrote:

(ii) the ability to offer IIIF access to a particular revision of an image -- because any subsequent cropping or rotation or rescaling by a Commons user, however well-intentioned, would totally throw out the pixel-referenced georeferencing data.

Agree. On Commons I've also seen way too many crops of the edges of historical or artistic photographs, and overwrites with very different images... we need the ability to (persistently) point to a specific revision of a file.

In T173346#4677091, @SandraF_WMF wrote:

In T173346#4661116, @Jheald wrote:

(ii) the ability to offer IIIF access to a particular revision of an image -- because any subsequent cropping or rotation or rescaling by a Commons user, however well-intentioned, would totally throw out the pixel-referenced georeferencing data.

Agree. On Commons I've also seen way too many crops of the edges of historical or artistic photographs, and overwrites with very different images... we need the ability to (persistently) point to a specific revision of a file.

This is the strongest argument yet for more cooperation with IIIF who have figured most of these things out, showing that our use of Commons annotations and Wikidata relative coordinates are quite behind the times.

@SandraF_WMF: Hi! This task has been assigned to you a while ago. Could you maybe share an update? Do you still plan to work on this task? Thanks! :)

@EvanProdromou is the new owner of these kinds of conversations: how do you want to capture this?

Long-term subscribers to this ticket will be excited to see T261621 Support the addition of the IIIF API for Wikimedia projects regarding content partnerships created two weeks ago
plus this announcement that's just appeared on the IIIF community's IIIF-discuss list ( https://groups.google.com/g/iiif-discuss/c/r9yf2GnaF1U ) :

Hi all --

I'm writing to share some exciting news: the Wikimedia Foundation is scoping an implementation of IIIF on Wikimedia Commons!

They will be hosting two meetings to discuss the project and allow GLAM professionals to share their experiences of IIIF. We encourage IIIF community members to join to contribute use cases.

• September 21, 2020, 3:30-4:30pm UTC
• September 22, 2020, 11:30am-12:30pm UTC

Links to the Zoom meeting URLs and more details can be found here:
https://iiif.io/news/2020/09/14/wikimedia-IIIF-meeting/

Was there an update, or documentation, from the September 2020 meetings?

Commons [1] lists two implementations, both "currently broken". What is the current state of play?

[1] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:International_Image_Interoperability_Framework#Wikimedia_Commons

@Pigsonthewing it seems like both of the tools are currently working. Given that they was marked as broken at the same time I'm guessing it might have been a temporary issue with WMCS at the time.