Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 17.05.2015 um 00:46 schrieb John Erling Blad:
> Your description is pretty far from whats in the proposal right now.
> The proposal is not clear at all, so I would say update it and
> resubmit if for a new discussion.

Can you explain where you think my description is inconsistent with the current
proposal?

I agree the proposal is a bit terse, and it would be nice if it explained a bit
more how common use cases, like translations and synonyms, would be covered by
the proposed model. But it clearly states that Lexemes contain Senses and Forms,
and that Sense and Forms are entities (and thus have IDs, and can be referenced
individually) and have Statements (which can be used to reference other
entities, like Senses or Items).

My explanation reflects the intent behind the proposed model. If it seems far
from the proposal to you, it would be good to know why that is, and how that
could be fixed.

-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

John, sorry, I guess I was too slow - as far as I understand you have now
re-read the 13-08 proposal, which has made my last Email redundant.

https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Wikidata_talk:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05&diff=216035102&oldid=216029531

I hope that the model is clear now. Thanks for your engagement!
Denny


On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 12:20 PM Denny Vrandečić 
wrote:

> Daniel's answer fits exactly with the proposal (which is unsurprising,
> because he reviewed and certainly influenced it).
>
> To make it clear again: the proposal on
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
> is a proposal for the tasks that need to be performed. Your questions are
> mostly about the data model, which was discussed earlier in the following
> proposal:
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2013-08
>
> Since I am not sure which questions remain open, I will try to address
> them here again, on the risk of repeating what has been said before.
> Unfortunately you seem to not use the terminology as defined in the second
> proposal linked above, which makes the discussion unnecessarily harder than
> it could be. If you prefer another terminology, I would be happy if you
> link to a one pager describing it, so that we can effectively communicate.
>
> > How do we go from a spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary and to an 
> > identifier
> on Wikidata?
>
> If with "spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary" you mean a Form as per
> the proposal, then the answer is: Forms have statements, and statements may
> point to Items, Forms, Senses, Lexemes, etc.. The exact properties to be
> used in these statements are up to the community.
>
> If with "spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary" you mean Lexeme as per
> the proposal, than the answer is: Lexems have statements, and statements
> may point to Items, Forms, Senses, Lexemes, etc. The exact properties to
> be used in these statements are up to the community.
>
> This is already stated in the second link above.
>
> > And how do we go from one Sense to another synonym Sense?
>
> A Sense has a set of statements, and statements may point to other Senses.
> The exact properties used are up to the community. So a statement with the
> property 'synonym' stated on a Sense could point to another Sense.
>
> > Do we use statements?
>
> Yes.
>
> > But then only the L-identifiers can be used, so we will link them at
> the Lexeme level..
>
> No. As the second link above says, Senses and Forms also have Statements.
> It is not only Lexemes that have Statements.
>
>
> > Wiktionary is organized around homonyms while Wikipedia is organized around
> synonyms, especially across languages, and I think this difference
> creates some of the problems.
>
> Yes, that is why Tasks 1, 2, 9 and 10 in the proposal for the task
> breakdown, the first link above, deal with exactly this question.
>
> Since Gerard stated that his question was subsumed by the above list, I
> hope that his question is also answered?
>
> I am afraid that I could not write a new proposal which is significantly
> clearer than the current, but I can keep answering questions. But all the
> questions you have asked seem to be explicitly answered in the two links
> given above. Since I know you are smart, I am wondering what is not working
> in the communication right now. Did you miss the first link? Because
> without that it is indeed hard to fully understand the second link (but the
> first link is already given in the second link).
>
> So, please, keep asking questions. And everyone else too. I would like to
> continue improving the proposals based on your questions and suggestions.
>
>
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:46 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:
>
>> Your description is pretty far from whats in the proposal right now.
>> The proposal is not clear at all, so I would say update it and
>> resubmit if for a new discussion.
>>
>> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Kinzler
>>  wrote:
>> > Am 15.05.2015 um 01:11 schrieb John Erling Blad:
>> >> How do we go from a spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary and to an
>> >> identifier on Wikidata?
>> >
>> > What do you mean by "go to"? And what do you mean by "identifier on
>> Wikidata" -
>> > Items, Lexemes, Senses, or Forms?
>> >
>> > Generally, Wiktionary currently combines words with the same rendering
>> from
>> > different languages on a single page. So a single Wiktionary page would
>> > correspond to several Lexeme entries on Wikidata, since Lexemes on
>> wikidata
>> > would be split per language.
>> >
>> > I suppose a Lexeme-Entry could be linked back to the corresponding
>> pages on the
>> > various Wiktionaries, but I don't really see the value of that, and
>> sitelinks
>> > are currently not planned for Lexeme entries. It probably makes more
>> sense for
>> > the Wiktionary pages to explicitly reference the Wikidata-Lexeme that
>> > corresponds to each language-section on the

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

Daniel's answer fits exactly with the proposal (which is unsurprising,
because he reviewed and certainly influenced it).

To make it clear again: the proposal on
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
is a proposal for the tasks that need to be performed. Your questions are
mostly about the data model, which was discussed earlier in the following
proposal:
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2013-08

Since I am not sure which questions remain open, I will try to address them
here again, on the risk of repeating what has been said before.
Unfortunately you seem to not use the terminology as defined in the second
proposal linked above, which makes the discussion unnecessarily harder than
it could be. If you prefer another terminology, I would be happy if you
link to a one pager describing it, so that we can effectively communicate.

> How do we go from a spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary and to an 
> identifier
on Wikidata?

If with "spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary" you mean a Form as per the
proposal, then the answer is: Forms have statements, and statements may
point to Items, Forms, Senses, Lexemes, etc.. The exact properties to be
used in these statements are up to the community.

If with "spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary" you mean Lexeme as per the
proposal, than the answer is: Lexems have statements, and statements may
point to Items, Forms, Senses, Lexemes, etc. The exact properties to be
used in these statements are up to the community.

This is already stated in the second link above.

> And how do we go from one Sense to another synonym Sense?

A Sense has a set of statements, and statements may point to other Senses.
The exact properties used are up to the community. So a statement with the
property 'synonym' stated on a Sense could point to another Sense.

> Do we use statements?

Yes.

> But then only the L-identifiers can be used, so we will link them at the
Lexeme level..

No. As the second link above says, Senses and Forms also have Statements.
It is not only Lexemes that have Statements.

> Wiktionary is organized around homonyms while Wikipedia is organized around
synonyms, especially across languages, and I think this difference creates
some of the problems.

Yes, that is why Tasks 1, 2, 9 and 10 in the proposal for the task
breakdown, the first link above, deal with exactly this question.

Since Gerard stated that his question was subsumed by the above list, I
hope that his question is also answered?

I am afraid that I could not write a new proposal which is significantly
clearer than the current, but I can keep answering questions. But all the
questions you have asked seem to be explicitly answered in the two links
given above. Since I know you are smart, I am wondering what is not working
in the communication right now. Did you miss the first link? Because
without that it is indeed hard to fully understand the second link (but the
first link is already given in the second link).

So, please, keep asking questions. And everyone else too. I would like to
continue improving the proposals based on your questions and suggestions.



On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 3:46 PM John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Your description is pretty far from whats in the proposal right now.
> The proposal is not clear at all, so I would say update it and
> resubmit if for a new discussion.
>
> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Kinzler
>  wrote:
> > Am 15.05.2015 um 01:11 schrieb John Erling Blad:
> >> How do we go from a spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary and to an
> >> identifier on Wikidata?
> >
> > What do you mean by "go to"? And what do you mean by "identifier on
> Wikidata" -
> > Items, Lexemes, Senses, or Forms?
> >
> > Generally, Wiktionary currently combines words with the same rendering
> from
> > different languages on a single page. So a single Wiktionary page would
> > correspond to several Lexeme entries on Wikidata, since Lexemes on
> wikidata
> > would be split per language.
> >
> > I suppose a Lexeme-Entry could be linked back to the corresponding pages
> on the
> > various Wiktionaries, but I don't really see the value of that, and
> sitelinks
> > are currently not planned for Lexeme entries. It probably makes more
> sense for
> > the Wiktionary pages to explicitly reference the Wikidata-Lexeme that
> > corresponds to each language-section on the page.
> >
> >> And how do we go from one Sense to another
> >> synonym Sense? Do we use statements? But then only the L-identifiers
> >> can be used, so we will link them at the Lexeme level..
> >
> > Why can only L-Identifiers be used? Senses (and Forms) are entities and
> have
> > identifiers. They wouldn't have a wiki-page of their own, but that's not
> a
> > problem. The intention is that it's possible for one Sense to have a
> statement
> > referring directly to another Sense (of the same or a different Lexeme).
> >
> >> Wiktionary is organized around h

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[John Erling Blad]

Your description is pretty far from whats in the proposal right now.
The proposal is not clear at all, so I would say update it and
resubmit if for a new discussion.

On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 12:21 PM, Daniel Kinzler
 wrote:
> Am 15.05.2015 um 01:11 schrieb John Erling Blad:
>> How do we go from a spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary and to an
>> identifier on Wikidata?
>
> What do you mean by "go to"? And what do you mean by "identifier on Wikidata" 
> -
> Items, Lexemes, Senses, or Forms?
>
> Generally, Wiktionary currently combines words with the same rendering from
> different languages on a single page. So a single Wiktionary page would
> correspond to several Lexeme entries on Wikidata, since Lexemes on wikidata
> would be split per language.
>
> I suppose a Lexeme-Entry could be linked back to the corresponding pages on 
> the
> various Wiktionaries, but I don't really see the value of that, and sitelinks
> are currently not planned for Lexeme entries. It probably makes more sense for
> the Wiktionary pages to explicitly reference the Wikidata-Lexeme that
> corresponds to each language-section on the page.
>
>> And how do we go from one Sense to another
>> synonym Sense? Do we use statements? But then only the L-identifiers
>> can be used, so we will link them at the Lexeme level..
>
> Why can only L-Identifiers be used? Senses (and Forms) are entities and have
> identifiers. They wouldn't have a wiki-page of their own, but that's not a
> problem. The intention is that it's possible for one Sense to have a statement
> referring directly to another Sense (of the same or a different Lexeme).
>
>> Wiktionary is organized around homonyms while Wikipedia is organized
>> around synonyms, especially across languages, and I think this
>> difference creates some of the problems.
>
> The Lexeme-Part of Wikidata (L-ids) would be separate from the Concept-part of
> Wikidata (Q-ids). The Lexeme part is organized around homonyms (more 
> precisely,
> homographs in a single language). Each Lexeme can have several "Senses" 
> modeled
> as "sub-entities", meaning that each Sense has its own set of Statements. Each
> Sense can be linked to Senses of other Lexemes (explicit synonyms or
> translations) and to Q-id concepts (implicit synonyms or translations) using
> Statements.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kinzler
> Senior Software Developer
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 15.05.2015 um 01:11 schrieb John Erling Blad:
> How do we go from a spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary and to an
> identifier on Wikidata? 

What do you mean by "go to"? And what do you mean by "identifier on Wikidata" -
Items, Lexemes, Senses, or Forms?

Generally, Wiktionary currently combines words with the same rendering from
different languages on a single page. So a single Wiktionary page would
correspond to several Lexeme entries on Wikidata, since Lexemes on wikidata
would be split per language.

I suppose a Lexeme-Entry could be linked back to the corresponding pages on the
various Wiktionaries, but I don't really see the value of that, and sitelinks
are currently not planned for Lexeme entries. It probably makes more sense for
the Wiktionary pages to explicitly reference the Wikidata-Lexeme that
corresponds to each language-section on the page.

> And how do we go from one Sense to another
> synonym Sense? Do we use statements? But then only the L-identifiers
> can be used, so we will link them at the Lexeme level..

Why can only L-Identifiers be used? Senses (and Forms) are entities and have
identifiers. They wouldn't have a wiki-page of their own, but that's not a
problem. The intention is that it's possible for one Sense to have a statement
referring directly to another Sense (of the same or a different Lexeme).

> Wiktionary is organized around homonyms while Wikipedia is organized
> around synonyms, especially across languages, and I think this
> difference creates some of the problems.

The Lexeme-Part of Wikidata (L-ids) would be separate from the Concept-part of
Wikidata (Q-ids). The Lexeme part is organized around homonyms (more precisely,
homographs in a single language). Each Lexeme can have several "Senses" modeled
as "sub-entities", meaning that each Sense has its own set of Statements. Each
Sense can be linked to Senses of other Lexemes (explicit synonyms or
translations) and to Q-id concepts (implicit synonyms or translations) using
Statements.


-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
This is in other words what my question amounts to. The question that Denny
does not answer.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 15 May 2015 at 01:11, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> Seems like this is doable, and it does describe a solution to how
> Wiktionary can be linked form Wikidata. It is although not completely
> clear to me how some remaining problems can be solved.
>
> How do we go from a spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary and to an
> identifier on Wikidata? And how do we go from one Sense to another
> synonym Sense? Do we use statements? But then only the L-identifiers
> can be used, so we will link them at the Lexeme level..
>
> Wiktionary is organized around homonyms while Wikipedia is organized
> around synonyms, especially across languages, and I think this
> difference creates some of the problems.
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:36 AM, John Erling Blad 
> wrote:
> > Yes, found a sentence in task 2. :)
> >
> > On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Daniel Kinzler
> >  wrote:
> >> Am 14.05.2015 um 23:54 schrieb John Erling Blad:
> >>> Let me rephrase, and the question is for Denny unless someone knows
> the answer.
> >>>
> >>> Lexemes at different languages share a spelling, and that is the
> >>> reason why they are linked together. That kind of linkage can be
> >>> automated. Some other pages (usually in other namespaces) at those
> >>> projects should be linked too, but can't be handled automatically.
> >>> Would they be handled as sitelinks in Items?
> >>
> >> Yes, I'd assume so.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel Kinzler
> >> Senior Software Developer
> >>
> >> Wikimedia Deutschland
> >> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Wikidata-l mailing list
> >> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[John Erling Blad]

Seems like this is doable, and it does describe a solution to how
Wiktionary can be linked form Wikidata. It is although not completely
clear to me how some remaining problems can be solved.

How do we go from a spelled form of a lexeme at Wiktionary and to an
identifier on Wikidata? And how do we go from one Sense to another
synonym Sense? Do we use statements? But then only the L-identifiers
can be used, so we will link them at the Lexeme level..

Wiktionary is organized around homonyms while Wikipedia is organized
around synonyms, especially across languages, and I think this
difference creates some of the problems.

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:36 AM, John Erling Blad  wrote:
> Yes, found a sentence in task 2. :)
>
> On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Daniel Kinzler
>  wrote:
>> Am 14.05.2015 um 23:54 schrieb John Erling Blad:
>>> Let me rephrase, and the question is for Denny unless someone knows the 
>>> answer.
>>>
>>> Lexemes at different languages share a spelling, and that is the
>>> reason why they are linked together. That kind of linkage can be
>>> automated. Some other pages (usually in other namespaces) at those
>>> projects should be linked too, but can't be handled automatically.
>>> Would they be handled as sitelinks in Items?
>>
>> Yes, I'd assume so.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel Kinzler
>> Senior Software Developer
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland
>> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[John Erling Blad]

Yes, found a sentence in task 2. :)

On Fri, May 15, 2015 at 12:34 AM, Daniel Kinzler
 wrote:
> Am 14.05.2015 um 23:54 schrieb John Erling Blad:
>> Let me rephrase, and the question is for Denny unless someone knows the 
>> answer.
>>
>> Lexemes at different languages share a spelling, and that is the
>> reason why they are linked together. That kind of linkage can be
>> automated. Some other pages (usually in other namespaces) at those
>> projects should be linked too, but can't be handled automatically.
>> Would they be handled as sitelinks in Items?
>
> Yes, I'd assume so.
>
>
> --
> Daniel Kinzler
> Senior Software Developer
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 14.05.2015 um 23:54 schrieb John Erling Blad:
> Let me rephrase, and the question is for Denny unless someone knows the 
> answer.
> 
> Lexemes at different languages share a spelling, and that is the
> reason why they are linked together. That kind of linkage can be
> automated. Some other pages (usually in other namespaces) at those
> projects should be linked too, but can't be handled automatically.
> Would they be handled as sitelinks in Items?

Yes, I'd assume so.


-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[John Erling Blad]

Let me rephrase, and the question is for Denny unless someone knows the answer.

Lexemes at different languages share a spelling, and that is the
reason why they are linked together. That kind of linkage can be
automated. Some other pages (usually in other namespaces) at those
projects should be linked too, but can't be handled automatically.
Would they be handled as sitelinks in Items?

John

On Thu, May 14, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> From a Wiktionary point of view they are not the same.  Wiktionary links
> articles that have the same spelling in common. For every meaning in every
> language they link to the articles that have a specific spelling and it is
> potluck if that meaning actually exists.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 14 May 2015 at 16:49, John Erling Blad  wrote:
>>
>> As I read your proposal you want to automate IW-linkage of similar
>> lexemes, but how do you want to handle those cases where the lexemes
>> are not similar? Your example "the tea room" vs "le questions sur let
>> mots" is such a case. Is this handled as a mixed automatic/manuel
>> case, with lexemes added automatically and the additional ones added
>> manually?
>>
>> Can you elaborate on how you want to handle word form vs word sense?
>>
>> John
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić 
>> wrote:
>> > It is rather clear that everyone wants Wikidata to also support
>> > Wiktionary,
>> > and there have been plenty of proposals in the last few years. I think
>> > that
>> > the latest proposals are sufficiently similar to go for the next step: a
>> > break down of the tasks needed to get this done.
>> >
>> > Currently, the idea of having Wikidata supporting Wiktionary is stalled
>> > because it is regarded as a large monolithic task, and as such it is
>> > hard to
>> > plan and commit to. I tried to come up with a task break-down, and
>> > discussed
>> > it with Lydia and Daniel, and now, as said in the last office hour, here
>> > it
>> > is for discussion and community input.
>> >
>> >
>> > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
>> >
>> > I think it would be really awesome if we would start moving in this
>> > direction. Wiktionary supported by Wikidata could quickly become one of
>> > the
>> > crucial pieces of infrastructure for the Web as a whole, but in
>> > particular
>> > for Wikipedia and its future development.
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Denny
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Wikidata-l mailing list
>> > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>> >
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
>From a Wiktionary point of view they are not the same.  Wiktionary links
articles that have the same spelling in common. For every meaning in every
language they link to the articles that have a specific spelling and it is
potluck if that meaning actually exists.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 14 May 2015 at 16:49, John Erling Blad  wrote:

> As I read your proposal you want to automate IW-linkage of similar
> lexemes, but how do you want to handle those cases where the lexemes
> are not similar? Your example "the tea room" vs "le questions sur let
> mots" is such a case. Is this handled as a mixed automatic/manuel
> case, with lexemes added automatically and the additional ones added
> manually?
>
> Can you elaborate on how you want to handle word form vs word sense?
>
> John
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
> > It is rather clear that everyone wants Wikidata to also support
> Wiktionary,
> > and there have been plenty of proposals in the last few years. I think
> that
> > the latest proposals are sufficiently similar to go for the next step: a
> > break down of the tasks needed to get this done.
> >
> > Currently, the idea of having Wikidata supporting Wiktionary is stalled
> > because it is regarded as a large monolithic task, and as such it is
> hard to
> > plan and commit to. I tried to come up with a task break-down, and
> discussed
> > it with Lydia and Daniel, and now, as said in the last office hour, here
> it
> > is for discussion and community input.
> >
> >
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
> >
> > I think it would be really awesome if we would start moving in this
> > direction. Wiktionary supported by Wikidata could quickly become one of
> the
> > crucial pieces of infrastructure for the Web as a whole, but in
> particular
> > for Wikipedia and its future development.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Denny
> >
> > ___
> > Wikidata-l mailing list
> > Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
> >
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[John Erling Blad]

As I read your proposal you want to automate IW-linkage of similar
lexemes, but how do you want to handle those cases where the lexemes
are not similar? Your example "the tea room" vs "le questions sur let
mots" is such a case. Is this handled as a mixed automatic/manuel
case, with lexemes added automatically and the additional ones added
manually?

Can you elaborate on how you want to handle word form vs word sense?

John

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 4:54 AM, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
> It is rather clear that everyone wants Wikidata to also support Wiktionary,
> and there have been plenty of proposals in the last few years. I think that
> the latest proposals are sufficiently similar to go for the next step: a
> break down of the tasks needed to get this done.
>
> Currently, the idea of having Wikidata supporting Wiktionary is stalled
> because it is regarded as a large monolithic task, and as such it is hard to
> plan and commit to. I tried to come up with a task break-down, and discussed
> it with Lydia and Daniel, and now, as said in the last office hour, here it
> is for discussion and community input.
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
>
> I think it would be really awesome if we would start moving in this
> direction. Wiktionary supported by Wikidata could quickly become one of the
> crucial pieces of infrastructure for the Web as a whole, but in particular
> for Wikipedia and its future development.
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
What is your definition of a language and, if it is not along the lines of
the ISO-639-3, how are they organised.

One of the first things to do is understand how these languages can be
incorporated in Wikidata and prepare for that. Do you have a list with all
the languages and hopefully their code ?
Thanks,
 GerardM
​
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Jan Dudík]

French wiktionary uses more than 2000 languages
JAnD

2015-05-07 23:25 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :

> Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53:
>
>> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting
>>> entries
>>> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers.
>>>
>> How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300
>> languages?
>>
>
> Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more than
> 300 languages.
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Ricordisamoa]

Il 08/05/2015 15:40, Federico Leva (Nemo) ha scritto:

Bene*, 08/05/2015 11:15:

So having a Wikibase installation only for Wiktionary makes more sense
in my opinion as that is the same plan we currently have for
Commons/Wikiquote etc.


We? Please remember that's only a personal proposal, which no 
Wikiquote community has ever subscribed to (yet). (Cc Wikiquote-l.)


Nemo


It's only a personal proposal 
, supported by 16 
people, and with a demo  set up 
by someone with no affiliation to the original proposer.
If you have any feelings against this project, I think you'd better 
explain them on the talk page 
.
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Luca Martinelli]

Nemo was more effective than me in explaining what I meant. For a partial
excuse, I had to rewrite and simplify my message several times, because I
was trying to make up my mind while writing. :)

L.
Il 08/mag/2015 18:47, "Federico Leva (Nemo)"  ha
scritto:

> Paul Houle, 08/05/2015 18:30:
>
>> Concepts and words are different things,  or better yet,  words (word
>> senses,  ...) are a special kind of concept.
>>
>
> I think however that Sannita's point is important and interesting.
> It can perhaps be illustrated with a simple point: Wikidata items
> (like Wikipedia articles) connect well to Commons categories, Wikiquote
> articles (authors/themes/works), Wikisource authors; they don't necessarily
> connect well to the building blocks (pages), like individual files,
> quotations, chapters. Similarly, Wiktionary is in large majority very
> overlapping and connected with the other projects, as long as you consider
> a subset of it (say, nominative form of nouns).
> The fact that Wiktionary contains an impressive mass of "other
> stuff" doesn't make it *so* special as to force a separate install, even
> though more aggressive/complete implementations of structured data might
> require one. Just like Wikiquote and Commons currently benefit (from)
> Wikidata even though one can imagine broader uses with different technical
> requirements.
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have read it, I had read it before, I commented at the time and imho it
is flawed.

What I am waiting for is why there is this insistence on not having
attributes on labels, why there is a "need" for the constructs that you
mentioned that only duplicate what is already there. It is an answer I
asked before and I framed it in this way because OmegaWiki proves that
there this can be done.

Please do not frame it in terms that can be understood. "Because we insist
on it" is a fine answer, it is the answer I have had so far.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 8 May 2015 at 21:33, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> I very much appreciate OmegaWiki - it has been a trailblazer for many of
> the ideas in Wikidata, and as you say, it is the granddaddy in many ways.
> OmegaWiki has been extensively looked into and the results from that have
> directly flown into the current proposal. The write up of that analysis can
> be found here:
>
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Comparison_of_Projects_and_Proposals_for_Wiktionary
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:46 AM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Please do appreciate that OmegaWiki, originally WiktionaryZ, really wants
>> to be considered in all this. It is the grand daddy of Wikidata and it does
>> combine everything you would want as far as lexical data is concerned.
>> Thanks,
>>  GerardM
>>
>> On 8 May 2015 at 18:18, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
>>
>>> I very much agree with Lydia and Nemo that there should not be a
>>> separate Wikibase instance for Wiktionary data. Having a single community
>>> in a single project, and not having to vote for admins here and there, have
>>> two different watchlists, have documentation be repeated, policies being
>>> rediscussed, etc. sounds like a smart move. Also, the Item-data and the
>>> Lexical-data would be much tighter connected than with any other project,
>>> and queries should be able to seamlessly work between them.
>>>
>>> The only reason Commons is proposed to have its own instance is because
>>> the actual multimedia files are there, and the community caring about those
>>> files is there and should work in one place. If there was only a single
>>> Wiktionary project, it might also be worth to consider having the
>>> structured data there - but since there are more than 150 editions of
>>> Wiktionary, a centralized place makes more sense. And since we already have
>>> Wikidata for that, I don't see the advantage of splitting the potential
>>> communities.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:35 AM Luca Martinelli 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 2015-05-08 15:33 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
 > +1. The Wikimedia community has been long able to think of all the
 Wikimedia
 > projects as an organic whole. Software, on the other hand, too often
 forced
 > innatural divisions.
 >
 > Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote (to name the main cases)
 link
 > to each other all the time in a constructive division of labour. It
 makes no
 > sense to make connections between them harder.


 I start from here, since Nemo got the point IMHO: the fact that every
 project has its own scope doesn't imply that the whole of the
 community works on different scopes - we just decided to split up our
 duties among ourselves. But it's not just that.

 TL;DR: Wikidata and Wiktionary deal with the same things (concepts),
 therefore are best-suited for each other, given some needed
 adaptations. Structured Data and Structured Wikiquote deal with
 different things (objects), therefore are not to be considered good
 examples.

 Long version here:

 In theory, one might just agree that a separate instance of Wikibase
 might be the best solution for Wiktionary, but Structured Data and
 Structured Wikiquote are different from a theoretical "Structured
 Wiktionary", because they respectively deal with images, quotes and
 words.

 Images and quotes are describable *objects*, as the Wiki*
 articles/pages are, and there are billions and billions of those
 objects out there. This is the main, if not just the only, reason why
 we *have* to put up a separate instance of Wikibase to deal with them:
 thinking that Wikidata might deal with such an infinite task is just
 nuts.

 Words, on the other hands, are describable *concepts*, not objects.
 They can be linked one another by relation, they have synonyms and
 opposites, they can be regrouped or separated, etcetera, which is
 exactly what we're currently doing with Wikidata items.

 I know, words are even more than images and quotes, so it would be
 even more nuts to think to deal with this just with Wikidata - but
 Wikidata is *already* structured for dealing with concepts, making it
 the best choice for integrating data from Wiktionary.

 In other words, Wikidata and Wiktionary both work with *concepts*,

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

I very much appreciate OmegaWiki - it has been a trailblazer for many of
the ideas in Wikidata, and as you say, it is the granddaddy in many ways.
OmegaWiki has been extensively looked into and the results from that have
directly flown into the current proposal. The write up of that analysis can
be found here:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Comparison_of_Projects_and_Proposals_for_Wiktionary



On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:46 AM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Please do appreciate that OmegaWiki, originally WiktionaryZ, really wants
> to be considered in all this. It is the grand daddy of Wikidata and it does
> combine everything you would want as far as lexical data is concerned.
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> On 8 May 2015 at 18:18, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
>
>> I very much agree with Lydia and Nemo that there should not be a separate
>> Wikibase instance for Wiktionary data. Having a single community in a
>> single project, and not having to vote for admins here and there, have two
>> different watchlists, have documentation be repeated, policies being
>> rediscussed, etc. sounds like a smart move. Also, the Item-data and the
>> Lexical-data would be much tighter connected than with any other project,
>> and queries should be able to seamlessly work between them.
>>
>> The only reason Commons is proposed to have its own instance is because
>> the actual multimedia files are there, and the community caring about those
>> files is there and should work in one place. If there was only a single
>> Wiktionary project, it might also be worth to consider having the
>> structured data there - but since there are more than 150 editions of
>> Wiktionary, a centralized place makes more sense. And since we already have
>> Wikidata for that, I don't see the advantage of splitting the potential
>> communities.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:35 AM Luca Martinelli 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 2015-05-08 15:33 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>>> > +1. The Wikimedia community has been long able to think of all the
>>> Wikimedia
>>> > projects as an organic whole. Software, on the other hand, too often
>>> forced
>>> > innatural divisions.
>>> >
>>> > Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote (to name the main cases)
>>> link
>>> > to each other all the time in a constructive division of labour. It
>>> makes no
>>> > sense to make connections between them harder.
>>>
>>>
>>> I start from here, since Nemo got the point IMHO: the fact that every
>>> project has its own scope doesn't imply that the whole of the
>>> community works on different scopes - we just decided to split up our
>>> duties among ourselves. But it's not just that.
>>>
>>> TL;DR: Wikidata and Wiktionary deal with the same things (concepts),
>>> therefore are best-suited for each other, given some needed
>>> adaptations. Structured Data and Structured Wikiquote deal with
>>> different things (objects), therefore are not to be considered good
>>> examples.
>>>
>>> Long version here:
>>>
>>> In theory, one might just agree that a separate instance of Wikibase
>>> might be the best solution for Wiktionary, but Structured Data and
>>> Structured Wikiquote are different from a theoretical "Structured
>>> Wiktionary", because they respectively deal with images, quotes and
>>> words.
>>>
>>> Images and quotes are describable *objects*, as the Wiki*
>>> articles/pages are, and there are billions and billions of those
>>> objects out there. This is the main, if not just the only, reason why
>>> we *have* to put up a separate instance of Wikibase to deal with them:
>>> thinking that Wikidata might deal with such an infinite task is just
>>> nuts.
>>>
>>> Words, on the other hands, are describable *concepts*, not objects.
>>> They can be linked one another by relation, they have synonyms and
>>> opposites, they can be regrouped or separated, etcetera, which is
>>> exactly what we're currently doing with Wikidata items.
>>>
>>> I know, words are even more than images and quotes, so it would be
>>> even more nuts to think to deal with this just with Wikidata - but
>>> Wikidata is *already* structured for dealing with concepts, making it
>>> the best choice for integrating data from Wiktionary.
>>>
>>> In other words, Wikidata and Wiktionary both work with *concepts*,
>>> while all the other projects work with *objects*. From a more
>>> practical point of view, why should I have a Wikidata item about, say,
>>> present tense[1] *AND* a completely similar item on "Structured
>>> Wiktionary"? It's the same concept, why should I have it in two
>>> different-yet-linked databases, belonging to and maintained by the
>>> very same community? Why can't we work something out to keep all
>>> informations just in one database?
>>>
>>> This is why I think that setting up a separate Wikibase for Wiktionary
>>> might end up in doubling our efforts and splitting our communities,
>>> which is exactly the opposite of what we need to do (halving the
>>> efforts and doubling the community

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please do appreciate that OmegaWiki, originally WiktionaryZ, really wants
to be considered in all this. It is the grand daddy of Wikidata and it does
combine everything you would want as far as lexical data is concerned.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 8 May 2015 at 18:18, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> I very much agree with Lydia and Nemo that there should not be a separate
> Wikibase instance for Wiktionary data. Having a single community in a
> single project, and not having to vote for admins here and there, have two
> different watchlists, have documentation be repeated, policies being
> rediscussed, etc. sounds like a smart move. Also, the Item-data and the
> Lexical-data would be much tighter connected than with any other project,
> and queries should be able to seamlessly work between them.
>
> The only reason Commons is proposed to have its own instance is because
> the actual multimedia files are there, and the community caring about those
> files is there and should work in one place. If there was only a single
> Wiktionary project, it might also be worth to consider having the
> structured data there - but since there are more than 150 editions of
> Wiktionary, a centralized place makes more sense. And since we already have
> Wikidata for that, I don't see the advantage of splitting the potential
> communities.
>
>
> On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:35 AM Luca Martinelli 
> wrote:
>
>> 2015-05-08 15:33 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
>> > +1. The Wikimedia community has been long able to think of all the
>> Wikimedia
>> > projects as an organic whole. Software, on the other hand, too often
>> forced
>> > innatural divisions.
>> >
>> > Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote (to name the main cases)
>> link
>> > to each other all the time in a constructive division of labour. It
>> makes no
>> > sense to make connections between them harder.
>>
>>
>> I start from here, since Nemo got the point IMHO: the fact that every
>> project has its own scope doesn't imply that the whole of the
>> community works on different scopes - we just decided to split up our
>> duties among ourselves. But it's not just that.
>>
>> TL;DR: Wikidata and Wiktionary deal with the same things (concepts),
>> therefore are best-suited for each other, given some needed
>> adaptations. Structured Data and Structured Wikiquote deal with
>> different things (objects), therefore are not to be considered good
>> examples.
>>
>> Long version here:
>>
>> In theory, one might just agree that a separate instance of Wikibase
>> might be the best solution for Wiktionary, but Structured Data and
>> Structured Wikiquote are different from a theoretical "Structured
>> Wiktionary", because they respectively deal with images, quotes and
>> words.
>>
>> Images and quotes are describable *objects*, as the Wiki*
>> articles/pages are, and there are billions and billions of those
>> objects out there. This is the main, if not just the only, reason why
>> we *have* to put up a separate instance of Wikibase to deal with them:
>> thinking that Wikidata might deal with such an infinite task is just
>> nuts.
>>
>> Words, on the other hands, are describable *concepts*, not objects.
>> They can be linked one another by relation, they have synonyms and
>> opposites, they can be regrouped or separated, etcetera, which is
>> exactly what we're currently doing with Wikidata items.
>>
>> I know, words are even more than images and quotes, so it would be
>> even more nuts to think to deal with this just with Wikidata - but
>> Wikidata is *already* structured for dealing with concepts, making it
>> the best choice for integrating data from Wiktionary.
>>
>> In other words, Wikidata and Wiktionary both work with *concepts*,
>> while all the other projects work with *objects*. From a more
>> practical point of view, why should I have a Wikidata item about, say,
>> present tense[1] *AND* a completely similar item on "Structured
>> Wiktionary"? It's the same concept, why should I have it in two
>> different-yet-linked databases, belonging to and maintained by the
>> very same community? Why can't we work something out to keep all
>> informations just in one database?
>>
>> This is why I think that setting up a separate Wikibase for Wiktionary
>> might end up in doubling our efforts and splitting our communities,
>> which is exactly the opposite of what we need to do (halving the
>> efforts and doubling the community).[2]
>>
>> Sorry for the long post. :)
>>
>>
>> [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192613
>> [2] Not sure if I have to remark this, but please, PLEASE, note this
>> is just an exaggeration for argument's sake, I have of course no data
>> that might confirm factually that the WD community will surge by 100%.
>> I just want to make clear my concept (heh).
>>
>> --
>> Luca "Sannita" Martinelli
>> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> http

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Paul Houle, 08/05/2015 18:30:

Concepts and words are different things,  or better yet,  words (word
senses,  ...) are a special kind of concept.


I think however that Sannita's point is important and interesting.
	It can perhaps be illustrated with a simple point: Wikidata items (like 
Wikipedia articles) connect well to Commons categories, Wikiquote 
articles (authors/themes/works), Wikisource authors; they don't 
necessarily connect well to the building blocks (pages), like individual 
files, quotations, chapters.	Similarly, Wiktionary is in large majority 
very overlapping and connected with the other projects, as long as you 
consider a subset of it (say, nominative form of nouns).
	The fact that Wiktionary contains an impressive mass of "other stuff" 
doesn't make it *so* special as to force a separate install, even though 
more aggressive/complete implementations of structured data might 
require one. Just like Wikiquote and Commons currently benefit (from) 
Wikidata even though one can imagine broader uses with different 
technical requirements.


Nemo

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Paul Houle]

Concepts and words are different things,  or better yet,  words (word
senses,  ...) are a special kind of concept.

I was looking at what the data model for a system that supports logical
representation of 100% of critical knowledge in business and technical
documents over narrow domains.

One thing I tried was (more or less) Wikidata+Wordnet and I found the
Wordnet part was difficult to apply.  Where Wikidata concepts match text
chunks it works OK,  but trying to deal with the verbs and prepositions and
all that stuff is labor intensive,  hard to do correctly,  and doesn't
contribute much to machine readable semantics.  It is more useful to model
verb functions in terms of discontinuous chunks which form templates,  i.e.
often the verb and associated prepositions together are a good unit of
modelling.

Super-Wordnet,  however,  will still be interesting to humans who might
want to pin down exact word senses in a contract.

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 11:35 AM, Luca Martinelli 
wrote:

> 2015-05-08 15:33 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> > +1. The Wikimedia community has been long able to think of all the
> Wikimedia
> > projects as an organic whole. Software, on the other hand, too often
> forced
> > innatural divisions.
> >
> > Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote (to name the main cases)
> link
> > to each other all the time in a constructive division of labour. It
> makes no
> > sense to make connections between them harder.
>
>
> I start from here, since Nemo got the point IMHO: the fact that every
> project has its own scope doesn't imply that the whole of the
> community works on different scopes - we just decided to split up our
> duties among ourselves. But it's not just that.
>
> TL;DR: Wikidata and Wiktionary deal with the same things (concepts),
> therefore are best-suited for each other, given some needed
> adaptations. Structured Data and Structured Wikiquote deal with
> different things (objects), therefore are not to be considered good
> examples.
>
> Long version here:
>
> In theory, one might just agree that a separate instance of Wikibase
> might be the best solution for Wiktionary, but Structured Data and
> Structured Wikiquote are different from a theoretical "Structured
> Wiktionary", because they respectively deal with images, quotes and
> words.
>
> Images and quotes are describable *objects*, as the Wiki*
> articles/pages are, and there are billions and billions of those
> objects out there. This is the main, if not just the only, reason why
> we *have* to put up a separate instance of Wikibase to deal with them:
> thinking that Wikidata might deal with such an infinite task is just
> nuts.
>
> Words, on the other hands, are describable *concepts*, not objects.
> They can be linked one another by relation, they have synonyms and
> opposites, they can be regrouped or separated, etcetera, which is
> exactly what we're currently doing with Wikidata items.
>
> I know, words are even more than images and quotes, so it would be
> even more nuts to think to deal with this just with Wikidata - but
> Wikidata is *already* structured for dealing with concepts, making it
> the best choice for integrating data from Wiktionary.
>
> In other words, Wikidata and Wiktionary both work with *concepts*,
> while all the other projects work with *objects*. From a more
> practical point of view, why should I have a Wikidata item about, say,
> present tense[1] *AND* a completely similar item on "Structured
> Wiktionary"? It's the same concept, why should I have it in two
> different-yet-linked databases, belonging to and maintained by the
> very same community? Why can't we work something out to keep all
> informations just in one database?
>
> This is why I think that setting up a separate Wikibase for Wiktionary
> might end up in doubling our efforts and splitting our communities,
> which is exactly the opposite of what we need to do (halving the
> efforts and doubling the community).[2]
>
> Sorry for the long post. :)
>
>
> [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192613
> [2] Not sure if I have to remark this, but please, PLEASE, note this
> is just an exaggeration for argument's sake, I have of course no data
> that might confirm factually that the WD community will surge by 100%.
> I just want to make clear my concept (heh).
>
> --
> Luca "Sannita" Martinelli
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>



-- 
Paul Houle

*Applying Schemas for Natural Language Processing, Distributed Systems,
Classification and Text Mining and Data Lakes*

(607) 539 6254paul.houle on Skype   ontolo...@gmail.com
https://legalentityidentifier.info/lei/lookup

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listi

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

I very much agree with Lydia and Nemo that there should not be a separate
Wikibase instance for Wiktionary data. Having a single community in a
single project, and not having to vote for admins here and there, have two
different watchlists, have documentation be repeated, policies being
rediscussed, etc. sounds like a smart move. Also, the Item-data and the
Lexical-data would be much tighter connected than with any other project,
and queries should be able to seamlessly work between them.

The only reason Commons is proposed to have its own instance is because the
actual multimedia files are there, and the community caring about those
files is there and should work in one place. If there was only a single
Wiktionary project, it might also be worth to consider having the
structured data there - but since there are more than 150 editions of
Wiktionary, a centralized place makes more sense. And since we already have
Wikidata for that, I don't see the advantage of splitting the potential
communities.


On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 8:35 AM Luca Martinelli 
wrote:

> 2015-05-08 15:33 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> > +1. The Wikimedia community has been long able to think of all the
> Wikimedia
> > projects as an organic whole. Software, on the other hand, too often
> forced
> > innatural divisions.
> >
> > Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote (to name the main cases)
> link
> > to each other all the time in a constructive division of labour. It
> makes no
> > sense to make connections between them harder.
>
>
> I start from here, since Nemo got the point IMHO: the fact that every
> project has its own scope doesn't imply that the whole of the
> community works on different scopes - we just decided to split up our
> duties among ourselves. But it's not just that.
>
> TL;DR: Wikidata and Wiktionary deal with the same things (concepts),
> therefore are best-suited for each other, given some needed
> adaptations. Structured Data and Structured Wikiquote deal with
> different things (objects), therefore are not to be considered good
> examples.
>
> Long version here:
>
> In theory, one might just agree that a separate instance of Wikibase
> might be the best solution for Wiktionary, but Structured Data and
> Structured Wikiquote are different from a theoretical "Structured
> Wiktionary", because they respectively deal with images, quotes and
> words.
>
> Images and quotes are describable *objects*, as the Wiki*
> articles/pages are, and there are billions and billions of those
> objects out there. This is the main, if not just the only, reason why
> we *have* to put up a separate instance of Wikibase to deal with them:
> thinking that Wikidata might deal with such an infinite task is just
> nuts.
>
> Words, on the other hands, are describable *concepts*, not objects.
> They can be linked one another by relation, they have synonyms and
> opposites, they can be regrouped or separated, etcetera, which is
> exactly what we're currently doing with Wikidata items.
>
> I know, words are even more than images and quotes, so it would be
> even more nuts to think to deal with this just with Wikidata - but
> Wikidata is *already* structured for dealing with concepts, making it
> the best choice for integrating data from Wiktionary.
>
> In other words, Wikidata and Wiktionary both work with *concepts*,
> while all the other projects work with *objects*. From a more
> practical point of view, why should I have a Wikidata item about, say,
> present tense[1] *AND* a completely similar item on "Structured
> Wiktionary"? It's the same concept, why should I have it in two
> different-yet-linked databases, belonging to and maintained by the
> very same community? Why can't we work something out to keep all
> informations just in one database?
>
> This is why I think that setting up a separate Wikibase for Wiktionary
> might end up in doubling our efforts and splitting our communities,
> which is exactly the opposite of what we need to do (halving the
> efforts and doubling the community).[2]
>
> Sorry for the long post. :)
>
>
> [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192613
> [2] Not sure if I have to remark this, but please, PLEASE, note this
> is just an exaggeration for argument's sake, I have of course no data
> that might confirm factually that the WD community will surge by 100%.
> I just want to make clear my concept (heh).
>
> --
> Luca "Sannita" Martinelli
> http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Luca Martinelli]

2015-05-08 15:33 GMT+02:00 Federico Leva (Nemo) :
> +1. The Wikimedia community has been long able to think of all the Wikimedia
> projects as an organic whole. Software, on the other hand, too often forced
> innatural divisions.
>
> Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote (to name the main cases) link
> to each other all the time in a constructive division of labour. It makes no
> sense to make connections between them harder.


I start from here, since Nemo got the point IMHO: the fact that every
project has its own scope doesn't imply that the whole of the
community works on different scopes - we just decided to split up our
duties among ourselves. But it's not just that.

TL;DR: Wikidata and Wiktionary deal with the same things (concepts),
therefore are best-suited for each other, given some needed
adaptations. Structured Data and Structured Wikiquote deal with
different things (objects), therefore are not to be considered good
examples.

Long version here:

In theory, one might just agree that a separate instance of Wikibase
might be the best solution for Wiktionary, but Structured Data and
Structured Wikiquote are different from a theoretical "Structured
Wiktionary", because they respectively deal with images, quotes and
words.

Images and quotes are describable *objects*, as the Wiki*
articles/pages are, and there are billions and billions of those
objects out there. This is the main, if not just the only, reason why
we *have* to put up a separate instance of Wikibase to deal with them:
thinking that Wikidata might deal with such an infinite task is just
nuts.

Words, on the other hands, are describable *concepts*, not objects.
They can be linked one another by relation, they have synonyms and
opposites, they can be regrouped or separated, etcetera, which is
exactly what we're currently doing with Wikidata items.

I know, words are even more than images and quotes, so it would be
even more nuts to think to deal with this just with Wikidata - but
Wikidata is *already* structured for dealing with concepts, making it
the best choice for integrating data from Wiktionary.

In other words, Wikidata and Wiktionary both work with *concepts*,
while all the other projects work with *objects*. From a more
practical point of view, why should I have a Wikidata item about, say,
present tense[1] *AND* a completely similar item on "Structured
Wiktionary"? It's the same concept, why should I have it in two
different-yet-linked databases, belonging to and maintained by the
very same community? Why can't we work something out to keep all
informations just in one database?

This is why I think that setting up a separate Wikibase for Wiktionary
might end up in doubling our efforts and splitting our communities,
which is exactly the opposite of what we need to do (halving the
efforts and doubling the community).[2]

Sorry for the long post. :)


[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q192613
[2] Not sure if I have to remark this, but please, PLEASE, note this
is just an exaggeration for argument's sake, I have of course no data
that might confirm factually that the WD community will surge by 100%.
I just want to make clear my concept (heh).

-- 
Luca "Sannita" Martinelli
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Bene*, 08/05/2015 11:15:

So having a Wikibase installation only for Wiktionary makes more sense
in my opinion as that is the same plan we currently have for
Commons/Wikiquote etc.


We? Please remember that's only a personal proposal, which no Wikiquote 
community has ever subscribed to (yet). (Cc Wikiquote-l.)


Nemo

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Lydia Pintscher, 08/05/2015 09:45:

I think we have a
>lot of experience here of running services that are different
>technically but unified by common goals and common purposes and linking
>them.

I would argue we are actually really really bad at it;-)



+1. The Wikimedia community has been long able to think of all the 
Wikimedia projects as an organic whole. Software, on the other hand, too 
often forced innatural divisions.


Wiktionary, Wikipedia, Commons and Wikiquote (to name the main cases) 
link to each other all the time in a constructive division of labour. It 
makes no sense to make connections between them harder.


Nemo

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Romaine Wiki]

Only for some templates, project pages and categories.

The only way it makes sense to link to an article of Wiktionary is when
someone wants to look up what a word can mean.

Romaine

2015-05-07 14:56 GMT+02:00 Yair Rand :

> Task 1 as described on the proposal page isn't completely clear on how it
> would work. Would the generated "items" have Q-ids? Would it be possible to
> link Wiktionary entries to non-Wiktionary pages in the very rare situations
> that make sense (articles on particular series of (not-language-associated)
> symbols/characters)?
>
> Regardless, I think that doing Task 1 is a very worthwhile idea. The rest
> of the tasks, however, should probably wait until much later.
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Lydia Pintscher <
> lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
>> Hey folks :)
>>
>> You're absolutely right that we need to focus on a few other things
>> first (UI redesign, units, queries, arbitrary access, data quality
>> tools incl watchlist improvements). However we also need to look into
>> the future. Wiktionary support needs a lot of input to make sure we're
>> doing the right thing. And it's good to give that time. So please do
>> read the latest proposal Denny posted. It even has some mockups to
>> make it easier to understand what it'd look like in practice. If we
>> can get rough consensus that this is the way forward things will fall
>> into place. And we'll not abandon the things I mentioned that are
>> right now more important.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lydia
>>
>> --
>> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
>> Product Manager for Wikidata
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
>> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
>> 10963 Berlin
>> www.wikimedia.de
>>
>> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
>>
>> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
>> unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
>> Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Romaine Wiki]

I personally am waiting for Meta to be added.

Romaine

2015-05-07 14:08 GMT+02:00 Andy Mabbett :

> On 7 May 2015 at 11:57, Ricordisamoa  wrote:
>
> > Let's focus on Commons, OpenStreetMap, queries, arbitrary access, new
> > datatypes?
>
> OSM in what context?
>
> Also, we should throw WikiSpecies into the mix.
>
> --
> Andy Mabbett
> @pigsonthewing
> http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Markus Krötzsch]

On 08.05.2015 11:30, Thomas Douillard wrote:

I don't get this, is this really a technical issue or just an interface
one ? It can be pretty clear to users that the semantic entity pages are
very different from lexical entities in the same instance just by
tweaking the UI. Or with separate instances this can be confusing as
well if not well done.

Is this a community issue ? Different project, different communities,
different site ? I really don't like it as it tends to make several
groups who can have difficulties to talk to each other and go on the
other site. I think as Wikidata community is already constituted and
tends to try to grow and advocate for the project, considering its
central situation in the ecosystem and that community tends to learn how
to make interproject social links, it would be beneficial imho to
continue to grow and to learn from here. There is strong connections
between words and senses.

I think in that global scheme, one or several instance is a mostly
technical detail that is not really important and that both solutions
can accommodate to distinct (or not) pages or distinct (or not) communities.


That's what I was thinking as well. As far as I see, whether it's one 
site or two sites would not make much difference for users, other than 
that the domain part of the URL would change and the menu/logo on the 
left would be different. But the accounts would be the same, the 
individual page contents would look the same, and the cross-links 
between dictionary content and data content would also be the same. 
Things would probably work fine either way.


Regards,

Markus



2015-05-08 11:15 GMT+02:00 Bene* mailto:benestar.wikime...@gmail.com>>:

Hi

I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to
provide the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be
done on Wikidata. But as said by Milos and pointed out by
Gerard, lexical knowledge does indeed require a different data
schema. This is why the proposal introduces new entity types for
lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly based on
lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others.


I think a separate Wikibase installation would be much better than
adding lexical knowledge on Wikidata. Wikidata is about things in
the first place and Wiktionary is about words etc. So having a
Wikibase installation only for Wiktionary makes more sense in my
opinion as that is the same plan we currently have for
Commons/Wikiquote etc. It would still be connected to Wikidata in
ways like accepting items from Wikidata as values in statements and
having access to their data. However, we should separate lexical
knowledge and Wikidata also wiki-wise.

Best regards,
Bene


___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l




___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l




___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Ricordisamoa]

Il 07/05/2015 14:08, Andy Mabbett ha scritto:

On 7 May 2015 at 11:57, Ricordisamoa  wrote:


Let's focus on Commons, OpenStreetMap, queries, arbitrary access, new
datatypes?

OSM in what context?


Adding mutual links, keeping them up to date, building applications that 
use both databases, etc.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Wikidata



Also, we should throw WikiSpecies into the mix.



This reminds me of some old discussions... [1] 
 
[2] 
 
[3] 
 
etc.
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 07.05.2015 um 19:38 schrieb Milos Rancic:
> BTW, Daniel, there are standardized templates for "real" "interwiki" links
> (links to the entries with the same meaning in other languages on the same
> Wiktionary). It makes sense that Wikidata creates a db for that. Though, it
> isn't trivial and assumes meanings. Though, it seems to me reasonably 
> possible.

The idea is to do this by having both lexical entries reference the same Q-item
as one of their meanings.


-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Thomas Douillard]

I don't get this, is this really a technical issue or just an interface one
? It can be pretty clear to users that the semantic entity pages are very
different from lexical entities in the same instance just by tweaking the
UI. Or with separate instances this can be confusing as well if not well
done.

Is this a community issue ? Different project, different communities,
different site ? I really don't like it as it tends to make several groups
who can have difficulties to talk to each other and go on the other site. I
think as Wikidata community is already constituted and tends to try to grow
and advocate for the project, considering its central situation in the
ecosystem and that community tends to learn how to make interproject social
links, it would be beneficial imho to continue to grow and to learn from
here. There is strong connections between words and senses.

I think in that global scheme, one or several instance is a mostly
technical detail that is not really important and that both solutions can
accommodate to distinct (or not) pages or distinct (or not) communities.

2015-05-08 11:15 GMT+02:00 Bene* :

> Hi
>
>  I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide
>> the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on Wikidata.
>> But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical knowledge does
>> indeed require a different data schema. This is why the proposal introduces
>> new entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly
>> based on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others.
>>
>
> I think a separate Wikibase installation would be much better than adding
> lexical knowledge on Wikidata. Wikidata is about things in the first place
> and Wiktionary is about words etc. So having a Wikibase installation only
> for Wiktionary makes more sense in my opinion as that is the same plan we
> currently have for Commons/Wikiquote etc. It would still be connected to
> Wikidata in ways like accepting items from Wikidata as values in statements
> and having access to their data. However, we should separate lexical
> knowledge and Wikidata also wiki-wise.
>
> Best regards,
> Bene
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Magnus Manske]

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 10:16 AM Bene*  wrote:

> Hi
>
> > I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide
> > the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on
> > Wikidata. But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical
> > knowledge does indeed require a different data schema. This is why the
> > proposal introduces new entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses.
> > The data model is mostly based on lexical ontologies that we surveyed,
> > like LEMON and others.
>
> I think a separate Wikibase installation would be much better than
> adding lexical knowledge on Wikidata. Wikidata is about things in the
> first place and Wiktionary is about words etc. So having a Wikibase
> installation only for Wiktionary makes more sense in my opinion as that
> is the same plan we currently have for Commons/Wikiquote etc. It would
> still be connected to Wikidata in ways like accepting items from
> Wikidata as values in statements and having access to their data.
> However, we should separate lexical knowledge and Wikidata also wiki-wise.
>
> +1
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Bene*]

Hi

I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide 
the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on 
Wikidata. But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical 
knowledge does indeed require a different data schema. This is why the 
proposal introduces new entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. 
The data model is mostly based on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, 
like LEMON and others.


I think a separate Wikibase installation would be much better than 
adding lexical knowledge on Wikidata. Wikidata is about things in the 
first place and Wiktionary is about words etc. So having a Wikibase 
installation only for Wiktionary makes more sense in my opinion as that 
is the same plan we currently have for Commons/Wikiquote etc. It would 
still be connected to Wikidata in ways like accepting items from 
Wikidata as values in statements and having access to their data. 
However, we should separate lexical knowledge and Wikidata also wiki-wise.


Best regards,
Bene

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Markus Krötzsch]

Hi,

On 08.05.2015 09:40, Stas Malyshev wrote:

Hi!


Other technical solutions can be found for keeping content apart when
needed (e.g., separate dumps by entity types).


It's not only dumps, it's also searches, APIs, special pages, etc. Of
course, everything can be solved with enough time and coding, but to me
it looks like running a DB server with only one database and only one
table - why not use separation that already comes for free with another
instance? We still can reuse any code we like.


API features must support entity type selection anyway, and I think the 
same holds for most other cases you mention. One would not start a new 
Wikibase from scratch but build on the existing code. Therefore, it 
would be necessary to extend Wikibase with the new features. This will 
not be a fork, but an extension of the existing system. Therefore, it 
will be unavoidable to implement it in a way that would work when using 
all the features on one site. This implies that all of the problems you 
mentioned will have to be solved anyway.


Regards,

Markus




___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Stas Malyshev  wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> The benefits of having it in one instance are huge imho. Our community
>> exists and knows how to handle structured data by now.
>> Processes/documentation/etc are set up. The world outside is starting
>> to realize that Wikidata is the place to go to for structured data
>> around Wikimedia now. And we probably do want easy connecting between
>
> All this is true, but I don't see why this implies running only one
> instance of wikibase. We could run another instance under the same
> Wikidata umbrella, connect them (just as we are connecting other wikis
> with Wikidata), share relevant documentation, etc. - neither of that
> mandates running everything within the same database. I think we have a
> lot of experience here of running services that are different
> technically but unified by common goals and common purposes and linking
> them.

I would argue we are actually really really bad at it ;-)

>> items/properties/lexems etc. As we're talking about different entity
>> types the data is easy enough to keep apart for those who want to.
>
> I'm not sure how easy that would be - I've seen a lot of code that
> assumes certain things work with all entities, now this code needs to be
> reworked to work with only two types of entities, or support many other
> types that behave very differently. And it's very easy to miss something
> and not discover it until we launch it and tools start to break because
> Lexems get into code that assumes something is either Item or Property.
> And I'm not talking about internal PHP code only - there's a lot of
> tools out there that neither WMF nor WMDE maintains. It's one thing to
> make new service (which btw I think is an awesome idea, just wanted to
> say it so that it would be clear than I am not criticizing the whole
> idea, just this aspect of it) and another add subtle changes to an
> existing one.

Yeah there are a lot of those indeed. The assumptions around entities
need to go away anyway as we are tackling Commons support. So we'll
have to bite that bullet one way or another.


Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Stas Malyshev]

Hi!

> Other technical solutions can be found for keeping content apart when
> needed (e.g., separate dumps by entity types).

It's not only dumps, it's also searches, APIs, special pages, etc. Of
course, everything can be solved with enough time and coding, but to me
it looks like running a DB server with only one database and only one
table - why not use separation that already comes for free with another
instance? We still can reuse any code we like.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Markus Krötzsch]

On 08.05.2015 08:50, Lydia Pintscher wrote:

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Stas Malyshev  wrote:

I am worried that having two different data sets within the same
instance would be a problem for tools working with the data, and for
humans too. And frankly, I don't see too much benefit - virtually all
added value Wikidata has now is working with the assumption of the
semantics of Wikidata values and properties. Everything that pertains to
lexemes, forms, etc. will have to be built separately, so why do it
within the same site and have all the mechanics act as a split brain? I
would think having parallel instance of Wikibase would serve the same
goal much better, while preserving all the benefits of using the
Wikibase toolkit and basic data model. Ultimately, it's the same as
having separate databases vs. having one huge database (or even one huge
table) with columns marking virtual partitions - the former is much
easier to handle if the sets are completely disjoint, as we'd have
between Wikidata and Wiktionary, as far as I can see. Maybe I am missing
some benefit joint structure would produce?


The benefits of having it in one instance are huge imho. Our community
exists and knows how to handle structured data by now.
Processes/documentation/etc are set up. The world outside is starting
to realize that Wikidata is the place to go to for structured data
around Wikimedia now. And we probably do want easy connecting between
items/properties/lexems etc. As we're talking about different entity
types the data is easy enough to keep apart for those who want to.


+1

Other technical solutions can be found for keeping content apart when 
needed (e.g., separate dumps by entity types).


Cheers,

Markus


___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Stas Malyshev]

Hi!

> The benefits of having it in one instance are huge imho. Our community
> exists and knows how to handle structured data by now.
> Processes/documentation/etc are set up. The world outside is starting
> to realize that Wikidata is the place to go to for structured data
> around Wikimedia now. And we probably do want easy connecting between

All this is true, but I don't see why this implies running only one
instance of wikibase. We could run another instance under the same
Wikidata umbrella, connect them (just as we are connecting other wikis
with Wikidata), share relevant documentation, etc. - neither of that
mandates running everything within the same database. I think we have a
lot of experience here of running services that are different
technically but unified by common goals and common purposes and linking
them.

> items/properties/lexems etc. As we're talking about different entity
> types the data is easy enough to keep apart for those who want to.

I'm not sure how easy that would be - I've seen a lot of code that
assumes certain things work with all entities, now this code needs to be
reworked to work with only two types of entities, or support many other
types that behave very differently. And it's very easy to miss something
and not discover it until we launch it and tools start to break because
Lexems get into code that assumes something is either Item or Property.
And I'm not talking about internal PHP code only - there's a lot of
tools out there that neither WMF nor WMDE maintains. It's one thing to
make new service (which btw I think is an awesome idea, just wanted to
say it so that it would be clear than I am not criticizing the whole
idea, just this aspect of it) and another add subtle changes to an
existing one.
-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Lydia Pintscher]

On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 7:15 AM, Stas Malyshev  wrote:
> I am worried that having two different data sets within the same
> instance would be a problem for tools working with the data, and for
> humans too. And frankly, I don't see too much benefit - virtually all
> added value Wikidata has now is working with the assumption of the
> semantics of Wikidata values and properties. Everything that pertains to
> lexemes, forms, etc. will have to be built separately, so why do it
> within the same site and have all the mechanics act as a split brain? I
> would think having parallel instance of Wikibase would serve the same
> goal much better, while preserving all the benefits of using the
> Wikibase toolkit and basic data model. Ultimately, it's the same as
> having separate databases vs. having one huge database (or even one huge
> table) with columns marking virtual partitions - the former is much
> easier to handle if the sets are completely disjoint, as we'd have
> between Wikidata and Wiktionary, as far as I can see. Maybe I am missing
> some benefit joint structure would produce?

The benefits of having it in one instance are huge imho. Our community
exists and knows how to handle structured data by now.
Processes/documentation/etc are set up. The world outside is starting
to realize that Wikidata is the place to go to for structured data
around Wikimedia now. And we probably do want easy connecting between
items/properties/lexems etc. As we're talking about different entity
types the data is easy enough to keep apart for those who want to.


Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You do not address how it prevents redundancy. I do not care for lexemes
nor forms when they do not incorporate labels. That is something that you
can explain now.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 8 May 2015 at 07:00, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> I mean, the lexical data in Wikidata according to the proposal would
> allow for statements on Lexemes and Forms. I slipped into the future for a
> moment ;)
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:32 PM Denny Vrandečić 
> wrote:
>
>> I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The lexical data in
>> Wikidata does allow for statements on Lexemes and Forms, as the proposal
>> states explicitly.
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:25 PM Gerard Meijssen 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> Given the opposition to having statements on the level of the label, it
>>> does not make sense to have Wiktionary included in Wikidata.
>>> Thanks,
>>>   GerardM
>>>
>>> On 8 May 2015 at 06:19, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
>>>
 I would disagree with requiring the Wiktionary communities to change
 their ways. Instead we should adapt our plans to fit into the way they are
 set up.

 Even if the English Wiktionary community would change to have
 per-language pages instead of the current system, it would be rather
 unlikely that all other language editions of Wiktionary would follow in a
 timely manner. I would prefer to leave this decision to the autonomy of the
 projects, and instead adapt to them (which is, by the way, what the
 proposal does).

 Yair, as Daniel said, the current Wiktionary pages would not be mapped
 to Q-Items. Since this was unclear, I tried to update the text to make it
 clearer. Let me know if it is still confusing.

 I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide
 the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on Wikidata.
 But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical knowledge does
 indeed require a different data schema. This is why the proposal introduces
 new entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly
 based on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others.


 On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
 wrote:

> Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53:
> >> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that
> splitting entries
> >> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers.
> > How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300
> languages?
>
> Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more
> than
> 300 languages.
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>

 ___
 Wikidata-l mailing list
 Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l


>>> ___
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

I mean, the lexical data in Wikidata according to the proposal would allow
for statements on Lexemes and Forms. I slipped into the future for a moment
;)

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:32 PM Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The lexical data in
> Wikidata does allow for statements on Lexemes and Forms, as the proposal
> states explicitly.
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:25 PM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Given the opposition to having statements on the level of the label, it
>> does not make sense to have Wiktionary included in Wikidata.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 8 May 2015 at 06:19, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
>>
>>> I would disagree with requiring the Wiktionary communities to change
>>> their ways. Instead we should adapt our plans to fit into the way they are
>>> set up.
>>>
>>> Even if the English Wiktionary community would change to have
>>> per-language pages instead of the current system, it would be rather
>>> unlikely that all other language editions of Wiktionary would follow in a
>>> timely manner. I would prefer to leave this decision to the autonomy of the
>>> projects, and instead adapt to them (which is, by the way, what the
>>> proposal does).
>>>
>>> Yair, as Daniel said, the current Wiktionary pages would not be mapped
>>> to Q-Items. Since this was unclear, I tried to update the text to make it
>>> clearer. Let me know if it is still confusing.
>>>
>>> I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide
>>> the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on Wikidata.
>>> But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical knowledge does
>>> indeed require a different data schema. This is why the proposal introduces
>>> new entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly
>>> based on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53:
 >> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting
 entries
 >> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers.
 > How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300
 languages?

 Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more than
 300 languages.

 Nemo

 ___
 Wikidata-l mailing list
 Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Again I do not care for lexemes and forms when they are distinct from
labels. I hate redundancy.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 8 May 2015 at 06:32, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The lexical data in
> Wikidata does allow for statements on Lexemes and Forms, as the proposal
> states explicitly.
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:25 PM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Given the opposition to having statements on the level of the label, it
>> does not make sense to have Wiktionary included in Wikidata.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 8 May 2015 at 06:19, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
>>
>>> I would disagree with requiring the Wiktionary communities to change
>>> their ways. Instead we should adapt our plans to fit into the way they are
>>> set up.
>>>
>>> Even if the English Wiktionary community would change to have
>>> per-language pages instead of the current system, it would be rather
>>> unlikely that all other language editions of Wiktionary would follow in a
>>> timely manner. I would prefer to leave this decision to the autonomy of the
>>> projects, and instead adapt to them (which is, by the way, what the
>>> proposal does).
>>>
>>> Yair, as Daniel said, the current Wiktionary pages would not be mapped
>>> to Q-Items. Since this was unclear, I tried to update the text to make it
>>> clearer. Let me know if it is still confusing.
>>>
>>> I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide
>>> the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on Wikidata.
>>> But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical knowledge does
>>> indeed require a different data schema. This is why the proposal introduces
>>> new entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly
>>> based on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53:
 >> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting
 entries
 >> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers.
 > How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300
 languages?

 Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more than
 300 languages.

 Nemo

 ___
 Wikidata-l mailing list
 Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Stas Malyshev]

Hi!

> I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide
> the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on
> Wikidata. But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical

I am worried that having two different data sets within the same
instance would be a problem for tools working with the data, and for
humans too. And frankly, I don't see too much benefit - virtually all
added value Wikidata has now is working with the assumption of the
semantics of Wikidata values and properties. Everything that pertains to
lexemes, forms, etc. will have to be built separately, so why do it
within the same site and have all the mechanics act as a split brain? I
would think having parallel instance of Wikibase would serve the same
goal much better, while preserving all the benefits of using the
Wikibase toolkit and basic data model. Ultimately, it's the same as
having separate databases vs. having one huge database (or even one huge
table) with columns marking virtual partitions - the former is much
easier to handle if the sets are completely disjoint, as we'd have
between Wikidata and Wiktionary, as far as I can see. Maybe I am missing
some benefit joint structure would produce?

-- 
Stas Malyshev
smalys...@wikimedia.org

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I have asked repeatedly to be allowed to indicated on labels that they were
in use up to a given time. The argument that labels are "only" for
identification is imho not valid because it denies the need that cannot be
expressed in a similar way. Having other constructs that do not address
this does not make the issue go away.
Thanks,
 GerardM

PS date is just one, alternate spelling is another, there are many more.

On 8 May 2015 at 06:32, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The lexical data in
> Wikidata does allow for statements on Lexemes and Forms, as the proposal
> states explicitly.
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:25 PM Gerard Meijssen 
> wrote:
>
>> Hoi,
>> Given the opposition to having statements on the level of the label, it
>> does not make sense to have Wiktionary included in Wikidata.
>> Thanks,
>>   GerardM
>>
>> On 8 May 2015 at 06:19, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
>>
>>> I would disagree with requiring the Wiktionary communities to change
>>> their ways. Instead we should adapt our plans to fit into the way they are
>>> set up.
>>>
>>> Even if the English Wiktionary community would change to have
>>> per-language pages instead of the current system, it would be rather
>>> unlikely that all other language editions of Wiktionary would follow in a
>>> timely manner. I would prefer to leave this decision to the autonomy of the
>>> projects, and instead adapt to them (which is, by the way, what the
>>> proposal does).
>>>
>>> Yair, as Daniel said, the current Wiktionary pages would not be mapped
>>> to Q-Items. Since this was unclear, I tried to update the text to make it
>>> clearer. Let me know if it is still confusing.
>>>
>>> I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide
>>> the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on Wikidata.
>>> But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical knowledge does
>>> indeed require a different data schema. This is why the proposal introduces
>>> new entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly
>>> based on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53:
 >> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting
 entries
 >> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers.
 > How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300
 languages?

 Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more than
 300 languages.

 Nemo

 ___
 Wikidata-l mailing list
 Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
 https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>
>>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

I am not sure I understand what you are saying. The lexical data in
Wikidata does allow for statements on Lexemes and Forms, as the proposal
states explicitly.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 9:25 PM Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Given the opposition to having statements on the level of the label, it
> does not make sense to have Wiktionary included in Wikidata.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 8 May 2015 at 06:19, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
>
>> I would disagree with requiring the Wiktionary communities to change
>> their ways. Instead we should adapt our plans to fit into the way they are
>> set up.
>>
>> Even if the English Wiktionary community would change to have
>> per-language pages instead of the current system, it would be rather
>> unlikely that all other language editions of Wiktionary would follow in a
>> timely manner. I would prefer to leave this decision to the autonomy of the
>> projects, and instead adapt to them (which is, by the way, what the
>> proposal does).
>>
>> Yair, as Daniel said, the current Wiktionary pages would not be mapped to
>> Q-Items. Since this was unclear, I tried to update the text to make it
>> clearer. Let me know if it is still confusing.
>>
>> I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide
>> the data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on Wikidata.
>> But as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical knowledge does
>> indeed require a different data schema. This is why the proposal introduces
>> new entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly
>> based on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53:
>>> >> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting
>>> entries
>>> >> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers.
>>> > How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300
>>> languages?
>>>
>>> Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more than
>>> 300 languages.
>>>
>>> Nemo
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Given the opposition to having statements on the level of the label, it
does not make sense to have Wiktionary included in Wikidata.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 8 May 2015 at 06:19, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> I would disagree with requiring the Wiktionary communities to change their
> ways. Instead we should adapt our plans to fit into the way they are set up.
>
> Even if the English Wiktionary community would change to have per-language
> pages instead of the current system, it would be rather unlikely that all
> other language editions of Wiktionary would follow in a timely manner. I
> would prefer to leave this decision to the autonomy of the projects, and
> instead adapt to them (which is, by the way, what the proposal does).
>
> Yair, as Daniel said, the current Wiktionary pages would not be mapped to
> Q-Items. Since this was unclear, I tried to update the text to make it
> clearer. Let me know if it is still confusing.
>
> I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide the
> data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on Wikidata. But
> as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical knowledge does indeed
> require a different data schema. This is why the proposal introduces new
> entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly based
> on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others.
>
>
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
> wrote:
>
>> Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53:
>> >> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting
>> entries
>> >> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers.
>> > How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300
>> languages?
>>
>> Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more than
>> 300 languages.
>>
>> Nemo
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

I would disagree with requiring the Wiktionary communities to change their
ways. Instead we should adapt our plans to fit into the way they are set up.

Even if the English Wiktionary community would change to have per-language
pages instead of the current system, it would be rather unlikely that all
other language editions of Wiktionary would follow in a timely manner. I
would prefer to leave this decision to the autonomy of the projects, and
instead adapt to them (which is, by the way, what the proposal does).

Yair, as Daniel said, the current Wiktionary pages would not be mapped to
Q-Items. Since this was unclear, I tried to update the text to make it
clearer. Let me know if it is still confusing.

I do not think a separate Wikibase instance would be needed to provide the
data for Wiktionary. I think this can and should be done on Wikidata. But
as said by Milos and pointed out by Gerard, lexical knowledge does indeed
require a different data schema. This is why the proposal introduces new
entity types for lexemes, forms, and senses. The data model is mostly based
on lexical ontologies that we surveyed, like LEMON and others.


On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:26 PM Federico Leva (Nemo) 
wrote:

> Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53:
> >> >The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting
> entries
> >> >per language would be easier for either editors or readers.
> > How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300
> languages?
>
> Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more than
> 300 languages.
>
> Nemo
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Andy Mabbett, 07/05/2015 22:53:

>The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting entries
>per language would be easier for either editors or readers.

How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300 languages?


Hm? Last time I counted, the English Wiktionary alone used way more than 
300 languages.


Nemo

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Andy Mabbett]

On 7 May 2015 at 18:27, Yair Rand  wrote:

> The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting entries
> per language would be easier for either editors or readers.

How many languages are currently used? How will this scale to ~300 languages?

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Smolenski Nikola]

Citiranje Yair Rand :
> The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting entries
> per language would be easier for either editors or readers. It has been
> discussed before numerous times over the years.

I do not see this strong disagreement. The last discussion about it was at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Grease_pit/2014/February#Embrace_the_wiki
and to me it seems that the majority of users support it.

(Other discussions are listed at
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Per-language_pages_proposal#Past_discussions
)

> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Smolenski Nikola  wrote:
> > Citiranje Jo :
> > > What you get on a Wiktionary page is a description of words in several
> > > languages with that particular spelling. Of course 1 spelling can also
> be
> > > several words in 1 language already.
> >
> > And why? Why not having a separate page for every language, while the
> > spelling
> > would just be a disambiguation page? This would be easier for Wiktionary
> > readers, writers and for linking with Wikidata.
> >
> > > 2015-05-07 12:03 GMT+02:00 Smolenski Nikola :
> > >
> > > > Citiranje Gerard Meijssen :
> > > > > The interwiki links to Wiktionary are from an interwiki point of
> view
> > > > > EXTREMELY easy to do. The problem with those links is that they
> > cannot
> > > be
> > > > > uniquely linked to existing items to Wikidata and thereby it becomes
> > > > > unrealistic to do it in a meaningful way at this time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wiktionary has one article for multiple lemmas in multiple languages
> > and
> > > > > they are based on the way they are written NOT on being about a
> > subject.
> > > >
> > > > Would it be possible to ask the Wiktionary community to stop with this
> > > > practice?
> > > > I have never understood why is it done in the first place, never saw
> > any
> > > > benefit
> > > > from it, nor known who came with the idea and why.




___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Milos Rancic]

BTW, Daniel, there are standardized templates for "real" "interwiki" links
(links to the entries with the same meaning in other languages on the same
Wiktionary). It makes sense that Wikidata creates a db for that. Though, it
isn't trivial and assumes meanings. Though, it seems to me reasonably
possible.
 On May 7, 2015 19:32, "Ricordisamoa"  wrote:

> Il 07/05/2015 16:03, Daniel Kinzler ha scritto:
>
>> Am 07.05.2015 um 14:56 schrieb Yair Rand:
>>
>>> Task 1 as described on the proposal page isn't completely clear on how
>>> it would
>>> work. Would the generated "items" have Q-ids? Would it be possible to
>>> link
>>> Wiktionary entries to non-Wiktionary pages in the very rare situations
>>> that make
>>> sense (articles on particular series of (not-language-associated)
>>> symbols/characters)?
>>>
>> Task 1 (Interlanguage-Links for Wiktionary) would not involve Wikidata or
>> Wikibase at all. It would be a standalone extension linking pages with
>> identical
>> names between wikis.
>>
>
> It's ok then! I have been thinking about something like that for some
> time...
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Ricordisamoa]

Il 07/05/2015 16:03, Daniel Kinzler ha scritto:

Am 07.05.2015 um 14:56 schrieb Yair Rand:

Task 1 as described on the proposal page isn't completely clear on how it would
work. Would the generated "items" have Q-ids? Would it be possible to link
Wiktionary entries to non-Wiktionary pages in the very rare situations that make
sense (articles on particular series of (not-language-associated)
symbols/characters)?

Task 1 (Interlanguage-Links for Wiktionary) would not involve Wikidata or
Wikibase at all. It would be a standalone extension linking pages with identical
names between wikis.


It's ok then! I have been thinking about something like that for some 
time...


___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Yair Rand]

The Wiktionary communities tend to strongly disagree that splitting entries
per language would be easier for either editors or readers. It has been
discussed before numerous times over the years.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Smolenski Nikola  wrote:

> Citiranje Jo :
> > What you get on a Wiktionary page is a description of words in several
> > languages with that particular spelling. Of course 1 spelling can also be
> > several words in 1 language already.
>
> And why? Why not having a separate page for every language, while the
> spelling
> would just be a disambiguation page? This would be easier for Wiktionary
> readers, writers and for linking with Wikidata.
>
> > 2015-05-07 12:03 GMT+02:00 Smolenski Nikola :
> >
> > > Citiranje Gerard Meijssen :
> > > > The interwiki links to Wiktionary are from an interwiki point of view
> > > > EXTREMELY easy to do. The problem with those links is that they
> cannot
> > be
> > > > uniquely linked to existing items to Wikidata and thereby it becomes
> > > > unrealistic to do it in a meaningful way at this time.
> > > >
> > > > Wiktionary has one article for multiple lemmas in multiple languages
> and
> > > > they are based on the way they are written NOT on being about a
> subject.
> > >
> > > Would it be possible to ask the Wiktionary community to stop with this
> > > practice?
> > > I have never understood why is it done in the first place, never saw
> any
> > > benefit
> > > from it, nor known who came with the idea and why.
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Smolenski Nikola]

Citiranje Jo :
> What you get on a Wiktionary page is a description of words in several
> languages with that particular spelling. Of course 1 spelling can also be
> several words in 1 language already.

And why? Why not having a separate page for every language, while the spelling
would just be a disambiguation page? This would be easier for Wiktionary
readers, writers and for linking with Wikidata.

> 2015-05-07 12:03 GMT+02:00 Smolenski Nikola :
> 
> > Citiranje Gerard Meijssen :
> > > The interwiki links to Wiktionary are from an interwiki point of view
> > > EXTREMELY easy to do. The problem with those links is that they cannot
> be
> > > uniquely linked to existing items to Wikidata and thereby it becomes
> > > unrealistic to do it in a meaningful way at this time.
> > >
> > > Wiktionary has one article for multiple lemmas in multiple languages and
> > > they are based on the way they are written NOT on being about a subject.
> >
> > Would it be possible to ask the Wiktionary community to stop with this
> > practice?
> > I have never understood why is it done in the first place, never saw any
> > benefit
> > from it, nor known who came with the idea and why.



___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Luca Martinelli]

2015-05-07 14:28 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher :
> However we also need to look into
> the future. Wiktionary support needs a lot of input to make sure we're
> doing the right thing. And it's good to give that time.

Totally agree with that. There's plenty of work to do for the team, we
all know that, but *one day* we'd have to figure out how to deal with
Wiktionary. It's just something that *has* to happen.

This doesn't mean at all it should become our first or only thought,
everybody knows that there are at least two or three concerns that
should have priority at the moment, but not even Denny was suggesting
that. He was merely suggesting to restart thinking about something
that, sooner or later, we'll have to deal with and to estabilish "a
break down of the tasks needed to get this done." Sorry for being
blunt, but not even the Structured Data project for Commons - which is
indeed a top-priority thing at the moment - would have started with
this attitude.

-- 
Luca "Sannita" Martinelli
http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utente:Sannita

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 07.05.2015 um 14:56 schrieb Yair Rand:
> Task 1 as described on the proposal page isn't completely clear on how it 
> would
> work. Would the generated "items" have Q-ids? Would it be possible to link
> Wiktionary entries to non-Wiktionary pages in the very rare situations that 
> make
> sense (articles on particular series of (not-language-associated)
> symbols/characters)? 

Task 1 (Interlanguage-Links for Wiktionary) would not involve Wikidata or
Wikibase at all. It would be a standalone extension linking pages with identical
names between wikis.


-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Milos Rancic]

It is of limited value (as Gerard explained) to do major work on
Wiktionary. Wiktionary articles could be transferred to the structured data
in the similar way like Wikipedia articles, with a lot of trouble. Thus not
the most optimal solution.

What makes sense is to incorporate OmegaWiki logic into Wikidata and create
formal multilingual dictionary (vs. Wiktionary as philological dictionary).
On May 7, 2015 4:54 AM, "Denny Vrandečić"  wrote:

> It is rather clear that everyone wants Wikidata to also support
> Wiktionary, and there have been plenty of proposals in the last few years.
> I think that the latest proposals are sufficiently similar to go for the
> next step: a break down of the tasks needed to get this done.
>
> Currently, the idea of having Wikidata supporting Wiktionary is stalled
> because it is regarded as a large monolithic task, and as such it is hard
> to plan and commit to. I tried to come up with a task break-down, and
> discussed it with Lydia and Daniel, and now, as said in the last office
> hour, here it is for discussion and community input.
>
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
>
> I think it would be really awesome if we would start moving in this
> direction. Wiktionary supported by Wikidata could quickly become one of the
> crucial pieces of infrastructure for the Web as a whole, but in particular
> for Wikipedia and its future development.
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Yair Rand]

Task 1 as described on the proposal page isn't completely clear on how it
would work. Would the generated "items" have Q-ids? Would it be possible to
link Wiktionary entries to non-Wiktionary pages in the very rare situations
that make sense (articles on particular series of (not-language-associated)
symbols/characters)?

Regardless, I think that doing Task 1 is a very worthwhile idea. The rest
of the tasks, however, should probably wait until much later.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 8:28 AM, Lydia Pintscher <
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hey folks :)
>
> You're absolutely right that we need to focus on a few other things
> first (UI redesign, units, queries, arbitrary access, data quality
> tools incl watchlist improvements). However we also need to look into
> the future. Wiktionary support needs a lot of input to make sure we're
> doing the right thing. And it's good to give that time. So please do
> read the latest proposal Denny posted. It even has some mockups to
> make it easier to understand what it'd look like in practice. If we
> can get rough consensus that this is the way forward things will fall
> into place. And we'll not abandon the things I mentioned that are
> right now more important.
>
>
> Cheers
> Lydia
>
> --
> Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
> Product Manager for Wikidata
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
> Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
> 10963 Berlin
> www.wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.
>
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
> unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
> Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Lydia Pintscher]

Hey folks :)

You're absolutely right that we need to focus on a few other things
first (UI redesign, units, queries, arbitrary access, data quality
tools incl watchlist improvements). However we also need to look into
the future. Wiktionary support needs a lot of input to make sure we're
doing the right thing. And it's good to give that time. So please do
read the latest proposal Denny posted. It even has some mockups to
make it easier to understand what it'd look like in practice. If we
can get rough consensus that this is the way forward things will fall
into place. And we'll not abandon the things I mentioned that are
right now more important.


Cheers
Lydia

-- 
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Product Manager for Wikidata

Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24
10963 Berlin
www.wikimedia.de

Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e. V.

Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg
unter der Nummer 23855 Nz. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das
Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Andy Mabbett]

On 7 May 2015 at 11:57, Ricordisamoa  wrote:

> Let's focus on Commons, OpenStreetMap, queries, arbitrary access, new
> datatypes?

OSM in what context?

Also, we should throw WikiSpecies into the mix.

-- 
Andy Mabbett
@pigsonthewing
http://pigsonthewing.org.uk

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Magnus Manske]

Forgive me, but at the 2014 WikiCon in Cologne, I saw a talk that would see
Wiktionary converted to a separate wikibase installation, collapsing all
the wikitionary languages into items. THAT could reasonably be linked to
Wikidata, or "just" cross-references via properties.

Trying to wedge the current links into Wikidata seems like a failing
proposition.

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:58 AM Ricordisamoa 
wrote:

>  Hi Denny,
> I would strongly advise against connecting Wiktionary to Wikidata in the
> status quo, mainly for the reasons Gerard summarized.
> While wikt's 'data model' probably makes sense for a spelling-based
> dictionary, it does not for a concept-based knowledge base like ours.
> Even turning Wiktionary into an OmegaWiki
> -like project seems unlikely
> feasible without an intermediate step.
> Let's focus on Commons, OpenStreetMap, queries, arbitrary access, new
> datatypes?
>
>
> Il 07/05/2015 04:54, Denny Vrandečić ha scritto:
>
>  It is rather clear that everyone wants Wikidata to also support
> Wiktionary, and there have been plenty of proposals in the last few years.
> I think that the latest proposals are sufficiently similar to go for the
> next step: a break down of the tasks needed to get this done.
>
>  Currently, the idea of having Wikidata supporting Wiktionary is stalled
> because it is regarded as a large monolithic task, and as such it is hard
> to plan and commit to. I tried to come up with a task break-down, and
> discussed it with Lydia and Daniel, and now, as said in the last office
> hour, here it is for discussion and community input.
>
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
>
>  I think it would be really awesome if we would start moving in this
> direction. Wiktionary supported by Wikidata could quickly become one of the
> crucial pieces of infrastructure for the Web as a whole, but in particular
> for Wikipedia and its future development.
>
>  Cheers,
> Denny
>
>  ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Ricordisamoa]

Hi Denny,
I would strongly advise against connecting Wiktionary to Wikidata in the 
status quo, mainly for the reasons Gerard summarized.
While wikt's 'data model' probably makes sense for a spelling-based 
dictionary, it does not for a concept-based knowledge base like ours.
Even turning Wiktionary into an OmegaWiki 
-like project seems unlikely 
feasible without an intermediate step.
Let's focus on Commons, OpenStreetMap, queries, arbitrary access, new 
datatypes?


Il 07/05/2015 04:54, Denny Vrandečić ha scritto:
It is rather clear that everyone wants Wikidata to also support 
Wiktionary, and there have been plenty of proposals in the last few 
years. I think that the latest proposals are sufficiently similar to 
go for the next step: a break down of the tasks needed to get this done.


Currently, the idea of having Wikidata supporting Wiktionary is 
stalled because it is regarded as a large monolithic task, and as such 
it is hard to plan and commit to. I tried to come up with a task 
break-down, and discussed it with Lydia and Daniel, and now, as said 
in the last office hour, here it is for discussion and community input.


https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05 



I think it would be really awesome if we would start moving in this 
direction. Wiktionary supported by Wikidata could quickly become one 
of the crucial pieces of infrastructure for the Web as a whole, but in 
particular for Wikipedia and its future development.


Cheers,
Denny
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Jo]

What you get on a Wiktionary page is a description of words in several
languages with that particular spelling. Of course 1 spelling can also be
several words in 1 language already.

It's at the level of the definition that one can link to the current
Wikidata. Provided Wikidata wants to have entries for all those
definitions. I'm not very active in Wiktionary anymore, but a template
pointing to wikidata might make sense on the Wiktionary page.

Of course you'd prefer to link in the other direction. I guess a separate
wikibase with links to WD would be better. Can those query languages query
across more than 1 wikibase?

If they can, it may make sense to put our 'meta-data' of Openstreetmap in a
dedicated wikibase too, but that's another discussion.

Polyglot

2015-05-07 12:03 GMT+02:00 Smolenski Nikola :

> Citiranje Gerard Meijssen :
> > The interwiki links to Wiktionary are from an interwiki point of view
> > EXTREMELY easy to do. The problem with those links is that they cannot be
> > uniquely linked to existing items to Wikidata and thereby it becomes
> > unrealistic to do it in a meaningful way at this time.
> >
> > Wiktionary has one article for multiple lemmas in multiple languages and
> > they are based on the way they are written NOT on being about a subject.
>
> Would it be possible to ask the Wiktionary community to stop with this
> practice?
> I have never understood why is it done in the first place, never saw any
> benefit
> from it, nor known who came with the idea and why.
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The practice makes sense for Wiktionary. As a matter of fact I think I
added quite a few with my bot. My point is not that it would not make
sense, my point is that it does NOT easily connect to Wikidata. When a
separate Wikibase is used for this ... fine. That makes sense.
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 7 May 2015 at 12:03, Smolenski Nikola  wrote:

> Citiranje Gerard Meijssen :
> > The interwiki links to Wiktionary are from an interwiki point of view
> > EXTREMELY easy to do. The problem with those links is that they cannot be
> > uniquely linked to existing items to Wikidata and thereby it becomes
> > unrealistic to do it in a meaningful way at this time.
> >
> > Wiktionary has one article for multiple lemmas in multiple languages and
> > they are based on the way they are written NOT on being about a subject.
>
> Would it be possible to ask the Wiktionary community to stop with this
> practice?
> I have never understood why is it done in the first place, never saw any
> benefit
> from it, nor known who came with the idea and why.
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Smolenski Nikola]

Citiranje Gerard Meijssen :
> The interwiki links to Wiktionary are from an interwiki point of view
> EXTREMELY easy to do. The problem with those links is that they cannot be
> uniquely linked to existing items to Wikidata and thereby it becomes
> unrealistic to do it in a meaningful way at this time.
> 
> Wiktionary has one article for multiple lemmas in multiple languages and
> they are based on the way they are written NOT on being about a subject.

Would it be possible to ask the Wiktionary community to stop with this
practice?
I have never understood why is it done in the first place, never saw any
benefit
from it, nor known who came with the idea and why.



___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The interwiki links to Wiktionary are from an interwiki point of view
EXTREMELY easy to do. The problem with those links is that they cannot be
uniquely linked to existing items to Wikidata and thereby it becomes
unrealistic to do it in a meaningful way at this time.

Wiktionary has one article for multiple lemmas in multiple languages and
they are based on the way they are written NOT on being about a subject.

Query is not the only thing that is missing ... Commons is more acutely
felt to be missing than Wiktionary.. PLEASE DO NOT PROCRASTINATE and do
something that is "nice" because someone proposed something similar. First
get the job done and first make Wikidata usable for my siter, my mother in
the way that Reasonator is and Wikidata is not. Please consider monitoring
the use of Wikidata... More relevant than Wiktionary at this time
Thanks,
 GerardM

On 7 May 2015 at 08:00, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Gerard Meijssen
>  wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > Would it not make sense to FIRST finish a few things.. Like Commons and
> > Query ?
>
> One of the primary things Wikidata was supposed to do is manage
> interlanguage links for Wikimedia projects.  That isnt finished until
> Wiktionary joins the other multi-language families in Wikidata.
>
> It looks like Task 1 of this Wiktionary-Wikidata plan will achieve
> that goal, and the migration will be extremely quick.  Hooray!
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[John Mark Vandenberg]

On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:53 PM, Gerard Meijssen
 wrote:
> Hoi,
> Would it not make sense to FIRST finish a few things.. Like Commons and
> Query ?

One of the primary things Wikidata was supposed to do is manage
interlanguage links for Wikimedia projects.  That isnt finished until
Wiktionary joins the other multi-language families in Wikidata.

It looks like Task 1 of this Wiktionary-Wikidata plan will achieve
that goal, and the migration will be extremely quick.  Hooray!

-- 
John Vandenberg

___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

The work on queries and arbitrary access is well on its way, and also the
new UI is continually being developed and deployed. I don't think that it
is too early to think and gather consensus on how the steps for Wiktionary
could look like. I am certainly not proposing to stop the current work on
queries, but merely to create realistic tasks for the Wiktionary phase of
Wikidata.

On Wed, May 6, 2015, 21:54 Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> Would it not make sense to FIRST finish a few things.. Like Commons and
> Query ?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 7 May 2015 at 04:54, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:
>
>> It is rather clear that everyone wants Wikidata to also support
>> Wiktionary, and there have been plenty of proposals in the last few years.
>> I think that the latest proposals are sufficiently similar to go for the
>> next step: a break down of the tasks needed to get this done.
>>
>> Currently, the idea of having Wikidata supporting Wiktionary is stalled
>> because it is regarded as a large monolithic task, and as such it is hard
>> to plan and commit to. I tried to come up with a task break-down, and
>> discussed it with Lydia and Daniel, and now, as said in the last office
>> hour, here it is for discussion and community input.
>>
>>
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
>>
>> I think it would be really awesome if we would start moving in this
>> direction. Wiktionary supported by Wikidata could quickly become one of the
>> crucial pieces of infrastructure for the Web as a whole, but in particular
>> for Wikipedia and its future development.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Denny
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata-l mailing list
>> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>>
>>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

Re: [Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Would it not make sense to FIRST finish a few things.. Like Commons and
Query ?
Thanks,
GerardM

On 7 May 2015 at 04:54, Denny Vrandečić  wrote:

> It is rather clear that everyone wants Wikidata to also support
> Wiktionary, and there have been plenty of proposals in the last few years.
> I think that the latest proposals are sufficiently similar to go for the
> next step: a break down of the tasks needed to get this done.
>
> Currently, the idea of having Wikidata supporting Wiktionary is stalled
> because it is regarded as a large monolithic task, and as such it is hard
> to plan and commit to. I tried to come up with a task break-down, and
> discussed it with Lydia and Daniel, and now, as said in the last office
> hour, here it is for discussion and community input.
>
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
>
> I think it would be really awesome if we would start moving in this
> direction. Wiktionary supported by Wikidata could quickly become one of the
> crucial pieces of infrastructure for the Web as a whole, but in particular
> for Wikipedia and its future development.
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
> ___
> Wikidata-l mailing list
> Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
>
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l

[Wikidata-l] Wikidata for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

It is rather clear that everyone wants Wikidata to also support Wiktionary,
and there have been plenty of proposals in the last few years. I think that
the latest proposals are sufficiently similar to go for the next step: a
break down of the tasks needed to get this done.

Currently, the idea of having Wikidata supporting Wiktionary is stalled
because it is regarded as a large monolithic task, and as such it is hard
to plan and commit to. I tried to come up with a task break-down, and
discussed it with Lydia and Daniel, and now, as said in the last office
hour, here it is for discussion and community input.

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05

I think it would be really awesome if we would start moving in this
direction. Wiktionary supported by Wikidata could quickly become one of the
crucial pieces of infrastructure for the Web as a whole, but in particular
for Wikipedia and its future development.

Cheers,
Denny
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l