Talk:Reading/Multimedia/Structured Data

Topic?

I think it would be better to describe what is seen on a picture, instead of telling the topic. For example, a picture shows those Wikidata items Q35525 (White House), Q76 (Barack Obama), Q1273495 (dog Bo) and Q7777019 (meadow). But what would be the topic? pet, dog, playing, etc? It is not obvious. --Goldzahn (talk) 07:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I guess, we need both. For example: commons:File:Into the Jaws of Death 23-0455M edit.jpg. There is seen a Landing Craft (Q1803024) and some soldiers (Q2063057, V Corps (United States)). What is missing is the date - 6. Juni 1944, - , place name - Omaha Beach and the topic - II. World War. PS: I have seen the Structured Data List - proposal. --Goldzahn (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a thing the community has to figure out as we go along. It could be all of what you listed or just parts of it. We'll not be making restrictions there. Hope that helps. --Lydia Pintscher (WMDE) (talk) 07:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Structured data

"Structured, machine-readable data": what is "structured data"? It is a machine-readable data? --Fractaler (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

• As opposed to unstructured data, structured data has a well-defined (modelled) format. This helps make it machine readable. --Clump (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the answer. Now a new question arises: what is "well-defined (modelled) format" (that have a "pre-defined data model"?)? The term is imprecise for several reasons: "2. Data with some form of structure may still be characterized as unstructured if its structure is not helpful for the processing task at hand". Then, for example, data in "Wikidata properties" (Q18616576: "part of", etc.) can be characterized as unstructured: this tool is not helpful for the processing task at hand (provides only local, relative information: a graph of a tree type can not be obtained (for example, by "Template:Item documentation", by Template:Category tree, so it is not possible to verify transitivity). And if you use, for example, the set "part" instead of the "part of" property, then the structuredness of the data appears, the absolute path (breadcrumb) appears, the ability to check the transitivity of the data. But then we received tool like "category tree" (for example, Q1064858 (desk), Category:Desks) --Fractaler (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're getting at. The number of "processing tasks at hand" is presumably unbounded, so all data is in that sense unstructured. Are you asking a general, philosophical question (in which case there are likely more appropriate forums than this page), or do you feel there is a bug, flaw, or inadequacy in wikidata, where you have a specific purpose in mind that a current data model does not facilitate? In the latter case, as indicated on this page (not the talk part, the actual page) you should probably look at the structured data hub. --Clump (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
      • Just at this page: "a new project that aims to implement structured, machine-readable data to store and retrieve information for images and media files on Wikimedia Commons and other sites". Ie, the author of this sentence knows what "structured, machine-readable data". But what is "structured, machine-readable data" - no info (no definision, no links). If no explanation is given here on the terms used, then this page need to give a quote from the project itself, something like: The project Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons "converts the free media files on Wikimedia Commons to a structured and machine-readable format, so that they become easier to view, search, edit, organize and re-use". And let those who use the terms in that project give a definition. --Fractaler (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Given its purpose, this (content) page certainly isn't the right place for any explicit definitions of the terms you mentioned. Further information on implementations themselves as well as details regarding their scope can be found at the links already provided on the page. FDMS4 13:18, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, really, there is a link. But there is no original quotation (""). Now it seems that the author of the statement ("a new project that ...") can give a definition to those terms that he uses. And if so, then I asked the question - what is the structured data about which he speaks on this page (do not confuse with other "structured data", by version of other author). --Fractaler (talk) 13:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

What's the issue with following a link? Sure you may have a question, but that doesn't mean that it has to be answered on this very page.    FDMS4 13:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid you'll have to ask "What's the issue with following a link?" every time the next user also wants to find out what the author (of "a new project that ...") meant by "structured data". Fractaler (talk) 14:03, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

This page exists in its current form since 2014. So far, no users had issues following the link. FDMS4 14:08, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

The belief that the sun revolves around the Earth, also lasted a long time --Fractaler (talk) 14:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Progress till now and any alternate way

I am personally very happy to find the works going on implementing the structured data here. But I was unable to get a clear understanding of the current availability of any method to use structured data format in the MediaWiki-based websites. Can anyone please tell me how to use structured data on a MediaWiki websites (as we can't directly edit the HTML of the webpages)? In other words how to add structured data as suggested at schema.org?

Also, is there any alternate way (e.g. using extension or php) to use the structured data in the webpage elements. Thank you. Biologically (talk) 06:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)