Nb that since this task was last active, monument identifiers from the National Heritage Board have changed (but in a backward-compatible way!).

As of yesterday, 2021-09-06, 10,537 BeBR-records that had been temporarily removed from SOCH (responded with http code 410) have been restored to the index. Their persistent kulturarvsdata.se-URIs once again respond with 200 + RDF/XML / JSON-LD, or 302 + a redirect to the source (the record in the National Buildings Registry) depending on the request's Accept-headers.

Since connections to kulturarvsdata.se URIs are already possible, and Alvin will shortly be harvested into K-samsök and thus gain such URIs, will this task not soon become redundant?

Given that Alvin will soon begin providing structured data to K-samsök (SOCH), and it is already possible to connect K-samsök's kulturarvsdata.se URIs, I wonder whether this task might not become superfluous before very long?

I'm not sufficiently familiar with Alvin to know exactly what you mean here, but I think I can guess. By adding "alvin-runestone" I presume you mean adding a new attribute where you could put the signum of the inscription depicted in the photo: <photo> -> alvin-runestone -> "U 1048" or something like that? If that's what you mean, then it's pretty much what we intend to do anyway, except we would want the relation to be some kind of "depicts": "alvin-runestone" is a bit ambiguous, since we want to make it clear that the photo shows an inscription, not that it is the inscription - especially as Alvin also includes two actual inscriptions (the objects, not just photos) from the Museum Gustavianum collection. And instead of the string "U 1048" we would of course have the URI for the inscription. (As you're so fond of saying, Magnus, "Things not strings!" 😉)

Exactly. At present it's unclear exactly at which "end" (Alvin or SRDB) the links will live, but the most likely scenario is this: Based on the runic signa that are already in Alvin, we will then add to Alvin identifiers (URIs) for the inscriptions the photos depict. This will form part of the data that is then delivered to K-samsök. So it is likely that the identifiers will be in Alvin itself – no need to worry! :)
(The other alternative is that we would add links to the Alvin images to SRDB, which would then be provided to K-samsök. But putting the links there is less desirable.)

Thanks for your tweet alerting me to this, Magnus!

Thanks for fast Answer and the answer from you is NO

Nb that changes to Fornsök are highly unlikely at this juncture, since that application is scheduled to be decommissioned in the near future as part of the DAP programme. The public-facing application which will replace it will, in the immediate term, regrettably require a login to use, making direct links difficult. This will however only be temporary, and a better public-facing solution is intended to follow. I would therefore strongly advise against linking directly to Fornsök; instead use the permanent http://kulturarvsdata.se/ identifiers when referring to ancient sites and monuments.

As far as I know, @Ainali referred WLM-2017 participants to the list in order to encourage them to take photos of otherwise unphotographed monuments, so in that sense it was "used". However, I don't know much it was actually "used" by the participants - did we get many such "new" photos?

@Ainali and I were just chatting, and I mentioned that it might be useful take account of links in SOCH's UGC hub. There are plenty of images in KMB which depict monuments or historic buildings with no official link connecting them in KMB, but for which a user has created such a link in the UGC hub. (Disclaimer: I am responsible for a lot of these, and most of them are rune-stones or churches that have rune-stones!) For objects where such links exist, it would simplify connecting the photo to the relevant Wikipedia article/Wikidata node using the FMIS or BeBR identifier as a common key.

@Abbe98 Thanks for the list! Actually @Ainali and I just tried something similar this morning, with a export of WLM URIs from Wikidata. It made no difference to the resulting list, so I think I'll stick with the FMIS data dumps for the time being: it takes almost no time at all to iterate over the tables, and the data is more up to date. It did however reveal that a roughly equal number of objects have been disqualified (i.e. they either have images when they did not before, have changed one of the other attributes we filter on) as have been added (i.e. new objects, or existing imageless objects which have changed one of the other attributes we filter on) which would appear to explain why the numbers above are so eerily similar.

I attach here a first attempt at a priority list of ancient monuments with no photos.

Hi! I've been away for the past week, so I've missed some of the discussion here. Sorry about that.

In T167421#3489665, @Lokal_Profil wrote:

How do you handle the complex/building relation? If there is an image of the complex then all of it's buildings are considered covered? How about if there is an image tagged with a particular building, what is the status of the complex then?

I generated the list of imageless protected buildings from BeBR for T167421. I used code adapted from a previous project to cache relevant objects from SOCH and then run a SPARQL query over the cache to identify buildings without images at any level of BeBR's object hierarchy. However, my code from the previous project had been written to work on small-ish sets of triples: it fetches and mungs the SOCH data quite happily, but is very slow at serialising the resulting RDF so it can be imported/queried. Like, really slow: at one point it took almost a week to serialise a set of 1¼ million triples. (The BeBR dataset on SOCH contains around 14 million triples in total, and serialisation time does not scale linearly with graph size.)

In T155707#3424152, @Lokal_Profil wrote:

Many thanks for the update.

@Lokal_Profil @Ainali
The last cache of triples – the raa-kmb-licenses.ttl file uploaded above – was harvested on 2017-02-02. I've now run a new harvest of triples, dated 2017-06-27, which includes a large number of addtional images which had not been licensed in February. It also includes a small number of updates and deletions; these are described below and I would recommend reading what has changed and why.

@Lokal_Profil I'm afraid not - you're stuck with getting the full records. :(

Okay, here are some examples. I use the "test" API-key here, but you of course will use your own API-key. ;)

Have I understood correctly, that for each of the keywords listed you'd like a K-samsök query with results for all objects matching that keyword which,

@Lokal_Profil The records have not been deleted per se, but they have been marked as being no longer publicly available. I strongly agree that removing the URI and the metadata as well is not a good outcome. I will look into what we can do about that, but if I understand the systems involved it may not be possible for KMB to make the metadata record only, and not the image, available for harvesting by SOCH - I think it's all or nothing. :(

@Lokal_Profil The list provided is for FMIS. I had understood that intention was to use this controlled vocabulary to match images based on the classifications of the monuments they depict, but I may have missed something.

Regarding the image links to Kulturmiljöbild in the data provided which are now (May 2017) returning 404 errors (as documented in T165277) the explanation from our archives division is as follows:

By the way, the object listed as fmis:fd856902 should really be fmis:10008501160001

Might be a good point to also clarify http://kmb.raa.se/cocoon/bild/bildanvandning.html (which was likely written before the license field was introduced).

@Lokal_Profil I've now received a reply from the archives: They have an ongoing clearing project for archival material which covers CC-BY licensing of photographs, among other things. For images still within copyright, this entails getting permission from the photographers to license their photos under CC-BY, and there is always the possibility that they will refuse, so CC-BY cannot be assumed. With the possible exception of some photographs of drawings, all the material that can be released with PD-mark has been released. There are also a number of undated photographs, and it remains to be seen how they will be handled.
I hope that helps to clarify things.

@Lokal_Profil I'm still waiting on confirmation of this from the archive, but an interim - if perhaps glib - answer is that all the images we have which are marked as CC-BY or PD have been released under those licenses after having been cleared by the archive; images without such a license have not been so cleared (yet).