We didn't end up doing blog posts (too busy with other things). Blog posts are planned for T189501: [Story] GLAM pilot projects and case studies for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons though.

We currently have a good (probably never complete, but should be decent) overview of the tools concerned, and are in touch with many developers about the StructuredDataOnCommons related changes that will happen soon.

Closing indeed, as this is followed up by T215468: Make clear to users that structured data on Commons is under CC0.

Hm... In interactions with community members - including around the GLAM pilot projects - I have noticed that the earlier separate deployment of Captions has introduced a lot of confusion, including about its purpose and its relation to 'other structured data' which is still a mystery to most people... I've actually spent quite a bit of time behind the scenes in the past weeks answering people's confused questions.

'Other statements' are essential to describing files on Commons. Many pieces of metadata of a file on Commons must be modelled separately and it would be incorrect to list them as qualifiers for 'depicts' statements. See the current properties table maintained by the community, which mostly lists 'other properties' that will live outside Depicts. Copyright status of a file is a major one!

Upping priority, as this has my full focus in 2019! The list of pilots is here on wiki: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/GLAM/Projects

I haven't had enough time to properly document this on wiki, but have internally advised some community members on specific batch uploads. A good example is the recent (January 2019) upload of digitized maps from the Instituto Geografico Nacional, by Wikimedia Spain: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:MTN25_printed

We got some basic numbers!

Please help by adding more statistics for these and for other Magnus tools in this ticket's comments.

Nice! Mix'n'match numbers are relatively 'low' (and I might have done a few of those in my volunteer capacity ;-) )

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.

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.

Measuring impact of tools may, besides tracking 'human' campaigns, be an interesting and valid use case for the Hashtags tool, so I'd be hesitant to drop QuickStatements edits (or any tool or bot edit) from the results by default.

In theory this should be measurable with the Hashtags tools, as both QuickStatements and Mix'n'match produce hashtags in edit summaries; but that is currently blocked by T207029: Consider addition of Wikidata tracking.

We do have a nice and active group of people who provide feedback. It can always grow, people are welcome to join anytime. But the baseline is there. Considering this task closed!

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.

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

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

In T199878#4433199, @Effeietsanders wrote:

There's definitely demand for this. Shall we source this together in a big WLM/WL table?

Adding a few people to this conversation - feel free to let me know who else I can involve here ;-)

There is now also a temporary mailing list for GLAM staff interested in joining this group. It will be used for occasional news, announcements, and requests for feedback. You can join here: https://groups.google.com/a/wikimedia.org/forum/#!forum/glam-structured-commons

Thanks for notifying me of this project! Looking forward to this upload :-)

The presentation was given! Slides are here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Structured_Data_on_Commons_-_EuropeanaTech_2018.pdf

A first community consultation on this topic has concluded, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Structured_data/Get_involved/Feedback_requests/GLAM_metadata_and_ontologies_mapping.

Repeating the summary here as well. Skipping the hyperlinks ;-) - for those, see the on-wiki summary.

I updated the talk page of this community consultation with a summary and an overview of next steps:

Changing priority to Normal - it is on the radar, and I and @Sadads are currently investing time in actively putting this on the agenda.