I was thinking about items vs properties and Commons. I am not sure a
"F" entity is necessary. In theory, each file on Commons can be linked
to another one, and each item on WikiData can be linked to another
one, but those links do not necessarily need to interconnect with
Commons. If a Commons fil
Heya folks :)
Here's your summary of what happened around Wikidata this week:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikidata/Status_updates/2013_06_21
Cheers
Lydia
--
Lydia Pintscher - http://about.me/lydia.pintscher
Community Communications for Technical Projects
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V.
Obentraut
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Daniel Kinzler wrote:
> For literature grade translations, that is, for a true dictionary, I
> believe
> that you need to full range of nuances attached to each word and each word
> sense, which is distinct from the platonic concepts described by data
> items.
>
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM, Denny Vrandečić <
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
> I agree that the different projects have different requirements. But I
> think we should strive for a small number of "Wikidatas" - you could have
> made the same argument for Commons, after all.
>
The two
Am 21.06.2013 14:44, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi,
>
> Denny, when you look at the data currently in Wikidata, you find what is in
> essence more than a basis for a translation dictionary.
I would say it's excellent as a thesaurus which can be used for cross-lingual
tagging, named entity recogn
Did you mean to say "We do *not* need another Wikidata"? Otherwise I am
confused by your comment.
On Jun 21, 2013 12:08 PM, "Jan Dudík" wrote:
>
> Ww do need another wikidata, only separate namespace for "items"
> (words) and some separate properties
>
> JAnD
>
>
> 2013/6/21 Gerard Meijssen :
>
Ww do need another wikidata, only separate namespace for "items"
(words) and some separate properties
JAnD
2013/6/21 Gerard Meijssen :
We do not need another Wikidata for Wiktionary
>
> Thanks,
> GerarM
>
___
Wikidata-l mailing list
Wikidata-
It was never intended to create a Wiktionary Database separate from
Wikidata, but have it being a part of Wikidata.
2013/6/21 Gerard Meijssen
> Hoi,
>
> Denny, when you look at the data currently in Wikidata, you find what is
> in essence more than a basis for a translation dictionary.
>
> Th
Hoi,
Denny, when you look at the data currently in Wikidata, you find what is in
essence more than a basis for a translation dictionary.
The notion that we need something separate is a notion you should reasses.
What we need is some clean-up of the labels currently in use. What we also
need are m
On Wed, Jun 19, 2013 at 03:59:13PM +0100, Neil Harris wrote:
> WordNet does not seem to be under a free license -- see
>
> http://wordnet.princeton.edu/wordnet/license/
>
> Since Wikidata's CC0 licensing allows commercial use, surely
> integrating any kind of data from WordNet risks conflict with
Hi David,
really thanks for this email.
I'm at OAI8 (conference of Open Access in Geneva), with several fellow
wikimedians,
and I'd like to express some thoughts related to yours.
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 6:47 AM, David Cuenca wrote:
> All this led me to think about the emotional vs rational rewa
done this change.
2013/6/20 Denny Vrandečić
> Thinking about it again, and discussing it internally, maybe we should
> replace "word" with "expression" and "meaning" with "sense"?
>
> Any +1's or differing opinions?
>
>
> 2013/6/20 Denny Vrandečić
>
>> The current proposal does not cover gramm
12 matches
Mail list logo
