Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

Federico Leva (Nemo)
Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:

> There is currently a number of things going on re the future of Wiktionary.
>
> There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could
> potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again,
> structured data is often rather easy to transform):
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki>
>
> There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary,
> which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
>
> <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision
>>

That's Wikisource. :)

>
> There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
>
> <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary>
>
> And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this direction.
>
> Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia
> and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource
> -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both
> Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again,
> Commons much less than Wiktionary).

Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia;
Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same
way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a
stricter definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different
way; Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure.
As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would
benefit a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for
Wikispecies idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become

> I would appreciate a discussion with
> the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the
> OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to
> give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata
> proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was
> decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and
> careful planning over hastened decisions.

It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
If there is one thing that would be extremely powerful, it would be
combining lexical information with Commons. I presented about this in
Alexandria at Wikimania and, it is still true. It makes sense to allow
people to search for a paard or a cheval or a
حصان<http://www.omegawiki.org/Expression:%D8%AD%D8%B5%D8%A7%D9%86>.
They would get pictures of a "horse".

This is what we have shown in OmegaWiki, this is functionality that fulfils
a real life need. What we need is searching for pictures in Commons.

When there is lexical information in a language about a subject and, there
is no Wikipedia article, we can point to the articles in another language.
This can be a language we know the user knows ....

As far as I am concerned, adding interwiki links to all the other projects
is nice. It needs to be done but the added functionality is minimal.

The real challenge for Wikidata is opening up data in multiple languages.
THAT is what you need lexical data for. Lexical data can be found in
Wiktionary and in OmegaWiki. What you can find in OmegaWiki is the proof of
the pudding; this is not pie in the sky. It is feasible, it has been done.
It can be done again.
Thanks,
     GerardM


On 11 March 2013 15:16, Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
>
>  There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
>> Wiktionary.
>>
>> There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could
>> potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then again,
>> structured data is often rather easy to transform):
>> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWiki<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki>
>> >
>>
>> There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary,
>> which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
>>
>> <
>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_**
>> Wikisource_strategic_vision<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision>
>>
>>>
>>>
> That's Wikisource. :)
>
>
>
>> There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
>>
>> <https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary<https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary>
>> >
>>
>> And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this
>> direction.
>>
>> Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following Wikipedia
>> and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or Wikisource
>> -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both
>> Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again,
>> Commons much less than Wiktionary).
>>
>
> Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia;
> Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same
> way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a stricter
> definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way;
> Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure.
> As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit
> a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies
> idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become
>
>
>  I would appreciate a discussion with
>> the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the
>> OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just to
>> give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata
>> proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was
>> decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and
>> careful planning over hastened decisions.
>>
>
> It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.
>
> Nemo
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email].**org <[hidden email]>
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l>
>
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Federico Leva (Nemo)
Hoi,
There is no point at all in maintaining the software currently used by
OmegaWiki. That would be foolish. Nobody who knows OmegaWiki will ask for
that.

What we are asking for is that we ensure that the structures that exist in
OmegaWiki are replicated in Wikidata for reasons that are clear and
obvious. Technically there are a few things that make sense to have..

For instance.. In the Dutch language we have a noun, a verb an adjective
.... we do not have a country in this class. A noun can be male, female or
neutral .... we do not have a stupid.  We have singular and plural and we
do not have dual like in Arabic.

When there is a concept, we have synonyms and translations that are used as
such but do not cover the original concept well. We want to be able to
indicate this.

Really Denny, all we need is to keep the structure, the data. We do not
even want to be dogmatic about this (too much). What we want are things
that fulfil a need, that have a purpose.
Thanks,
         GerardM


On 11 March 2013 15:51, Denny Vrandečić <[hidden email]>wrote:

> Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal:
>
> <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiktionary_-_the_way_it_should_be
> >
>
> but as far as I can tell, this one didn't make it into round 1 (pity,
> something like that would have made sense, but I understand that the
> proposal was obviously not detailed enough. Whatever.)
>
> I fully agree with Andrea and Nemo that some use cases would be very easy
> to implement, especially linking between the projects. Commons and
> Wiktionary though are very different and require more thought:
>
> Commons:
> * easy goals: link to appropriate items for some of the pages in Commons,
> use data from Wikidata in the creator namespace and similar
> * more engaging: add metadata to the media files in Commons itself and link
> them to each other and to Wikidata
>
> Wiktionary:
> * easy goals: none. The conceptualization of Wiktionary simply is not a
> direct fit to the conceptualization in Wikipedia and Wikidata.
> We need to figure out how they work together. Maybe this page is a good
> start, and maybe we should collect the ideas there.
>
> <https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary<
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary>
> >
>
> I mean, OmegaWiki has been around for a while, and they learned many,
> extremely valuable lessons. A lot of work has went into it, and it would be
> a shame not to build on its experiences and lessons. But I would like to
> ask the question whether it is the right software or not, even though it is
> a painful question. But please be reminded that I have spent many years in
> the development of Semantic MediaWiki, with the one goal to have it
> switched on the Wikipedias -- and then to come to the conclusion to *not*
> use the software as is, and start from scratch.
>
> We need a discussion on Wiktionary, and how it can evolve, and if it even
> should. And I do not think that a cross-mailing list discussion like the
> current one is the right place, and I do not even know where the right
> place is.
>
> So, first question: where should this discussion take place?
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/3/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) <[hidden email]>
>
> > Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52:
> >
> >  There is currently a number of things going on re the future of
> >> Wiktionary.
> >>
> >> There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could
> >> potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then
> again,
> >> structured data is often rather easy to transform):
> >> <
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWiki<
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki>
> >> >
> >>
> >> There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary,
> >> which I consider a potentially smarter first step:
> >>
> >> <
> >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_**
> >> Wikisource_strategic_vision<
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> > That's Wikisource. :)
> >
> >
> >
> >> There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself:
> >>
> >> <https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary<
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary>
> >> >
> >>
> >> And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this
> >> direction.
> >>
> >> Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following
> Wikipedia
> >> and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or
> Wikisource
> >> -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but both
> >> Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again,
> >> Commons much less than Wiktionary).
> >>
> >
> > Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like Wikipedia;
> > Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the same
> > way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a
> stricter
> > definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way;
> > Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure.
> > As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would benefit
> > a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies
> > idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become
> >
> >
> >  I would appreciate a discussion with
> >> the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the
> >> OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. Just
> to
> >> give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata
> >> proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it was
> >> decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow and
> >> careful planning over hastened decisions.
> >>
> >
> > It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what matters.
> >
> > Nemo
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Project director Wikidata
> Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin
> Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter
> der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für
> Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Are there plans for interactions between wikidata and wiktionaries ?

Amgine-3
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

As a side-note, the dbWiktionary (dbPedia) group also use Wiktionary-l
for communications.

Amgine
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJRPhFiAAoJEBGze5c9ley6+88H/A+7avIyh2rHF2W5rJ1i13cE
L8Yn3BBpY2ce2bqD/ANH61fpz1pf1b3bm367QNRBnNn3dn32S8GEfQ9kCHn8t8mK
zDHNJvlnCtwHxAJfvj/rlaxsUQJ+usgN4AUkwWw9L1aPUJV1Lay8W3/bp7yqnOCj
ZjhkmCOC/COOLjiyKn1WA6kJ+jC6ephFx16vWSNocnwuhvZqZEpT6t5MvMJWG9AU
V55QBYaUlJtXiK+6cBfCAWh1jtQwqlVwUgOYwzwkI8bHoRJMCnQeKvGVhqmo6/8h
nYUpcE+mJuyozMugkSEp1N3W6COF+6FOvlDFJxOLty/7vs5aRYkKX+QVnLSXQiM=
=StRu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Wiktionary-l mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l