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 <vrande...@gmail.com> 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 <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> 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 <vrande...@gmail.com> 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) <nemow...@gmail.com>
>>> 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
