Re: [Wikidata] Request for Property help (Schema.org mapping taskforce)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Another broken record. I understand how identifiers added to an item make
for the item and an external record to be the same. This is helpful because
it allows comparison of the statements between Wikidata and the external
source.

What is the benefit of Schema.org. Why have it how will it help us.

Or to give you an example. I propose to link red links and wiki links in
all Wikipedias to Wikidata items. It allows for an improved quality in the
Wikipedias in a similar way as the interwiki links brought more quality. It
will also add items to the lists of items that have no article based on
queries from Wikidata (a benefit to projects like women in red). It will
make it easier to add the sources from DBpedia to Wikidata based on the
statements in Wikidata.

So what is the benefit from your proposal? Stating that it will in the
abstract does not give me a warm feeling.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 13 September 2016 at 22:24, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> The benefit is directly towards WMDE's goals.
>
> Specifically,
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/
> 2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_
> form#Financials:_current_funding_period
> Goal 1b: Grow the reach of Wikidata beyond the Wikimedia projects
>
> A Wikidata property = Some external vocabulary property
> A Wikidata property is similar to Some external vocabulary property
> A Wikidata property is considered a parent class to Some external
> vocabulary class  <-- Needs new property for support.
> A Wikidata property is considered a child class to Some external
> vocabulary class
>
> What Schema.org needs now from Wikidata is the addition of a few new
> properties that seem to be missing.  (I sound like a broken record now)
>
> 1. 'external subclass'.
>
> ​DONE.
>
> Let's start there.  I don't even want to drag this discussion further than
> beyond that 1 request, at this point in time.
>
> Thad
> +ThadGuidry 
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Scott MacLeod]

Great news, and thanks!

How will Wiktionary with Wikidata anticipate "voice" and "voice in
translation" (for example in Google Voice or in other parallel projects)?
And how will Wiktionary/Wikidata also anticipate all 7,097 living languages
(Ethnologue) / 7943 entries under languages (Glottolog) and re machine
translation? (I'll look at the plan more closely about this).

Thank you,
Scott



On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:53 PM, Amirouche Boubekki  wrote:

> Héllo,
>
> I am very happy of this news.
>
> I a wiki newbie interested in using wikidata to do text analysis.
> I try to follow the discussion here and on french wiktionary.
>
> I take this as opportunity to try to sum up some concerns that are raised
> on french wiktionary [0]:
>
> - How wikidata and wiktionary databases will be synchronized?
>
> - Will editing wiktionary change? The concern is that this will make
> editing wiktionary more difficult for people.
>
> - Also, what about bots. Will bots be allowed/able to edit wiktionary
> pages after the support of wikidata in wiktionary?
>
> - Another concern is that if edits are done in some wiktionary and that
> edit has an impact on another wiktionary. People will have trouble to
> reconcil their opinion given they don't speak the same language. Can an
> edit in a wiktionary A break wiktionary B?
>
> I understand that wikidata requires new code to support the organisation
> of new relations between the data. I understand that with wikidata it will
> be easy to create interwiki links and thesaurus kind of pages but what else
> can provide wikidata to wiktionary?
>
> [0] https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Projet:Coop%C3%A9ration/Wikidata
>
> Thanks,
>
> i⋅am⋅amz3
>
>
> On 2016-09-13 15:17, Lydia Pintscher wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone :)
>>
>> Wiktionary is our third-largest sister project, both in term of active
>> editors and readers. It is a unique resource, with the goal to provide
>> a dictionary for every language, in every language. Since the
>> beginning of Wikidata but increasingly over the past months I have
>> been getting more and more requests for supporting Wiktionary and
>> lexicographical data in Wikidata. Having this data available openly
>> and freely licensed would be a major step forward in automated
>> translation, text analysis, text generation and much more. It will
>> enable and ease research. And most importantly it will enable the
>> individual Wiktionary communities to work more closely together and
>> benefit from each other’s work.
>>
>> With this and the increased demand to support Wikimedia Commons with
>> Wikidata, we have looked at the bigger picture and our options. I am
>> seeing a lot of overlap in the work we need to do to support
>> Wiktionary and Commons. I am also seeing increasing pressure to store
>> lexicographical data in existing items (which would be bad for many
>> reasons).
>>
>> Because of this we will start implementing support for Wiktionary in
>> parallel to Commons based on our annual plan and quarterly plans. We
>> contacted several of our partners in order to get funding for this
>> additional work. I am happy that Google agreed to provide funding
>> (restricted to work on Wikidata). With this we can reorganize our team
>> and set up one part of the team to continue working on building out
>> the core of Wikidata and support for Wikipedia and Commons and the
>> other part will concentrate on Wiktionary. (To support and to extend
>> our work around Wikidata with the help of external funding sources was
>> our plan in our annual plan 2016:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-
>> 2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#
>> Financials:_current_funding_period)
>>
>> As a next step I’d like us all to have another careful look at the
>> latest proposal at
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development. It has
>> been online for input in its current form for a year and the first
>> version is 3 years old now. So I am confident that the proposal is in
>> a good shape to start implementation. However I’d like to do a last
>> round of feedback with you all to make sure the concept really is
>> sane. To make it easier to understand there is now also a pdf
>> explaining the concept in a slightly different way:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikidata_for_Wiktion
>> ary_announcement.pdf
>> Please do go ahead and review it. If you have comments or questions
>> please leave them on the talk page of the latest proposal at
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Wiktionary/Devel
>> opment/Proposals/2015-05.
>> I’d be especially interested in feedback from editors who are familiar
>> with both Wiktionary and Wikidata.
>>
>> Getting support for Wiktionary done - just like for Commons - will
>> take some time but I am really excited about the opportunities it will
>> open up especially for languages that have so far not gotten much or
>> any technological support.
>>
>>
>> Cheers
>> Lydia
>>
>> --
>> Lydia P

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 13.09.2016 um 15:37 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi,
> You assume that it is not good to have lexicological information in our 
> existing
> items. With Wiktionary support you bring such information on board. It would 
> be
> really awkward when for every concept there has to be an item in two 
> databases.

It will be two namespaces in the same project.

But we will not duplicate items. The proposed structure is not concept-centered
like Omegawiki is. It will be centered about lexemes, like Wiktionary is, but
with a higher level of granularity (a lexeme corresponds to one "morphological"
section on a Wiktionary page).

> Why is there this problem with lexicologival information and how will the
> current data be linked to the future "Wiktionary-data" information if there 
> are
> to be two databases?

Because "bumblebee"  "noun" conflicts with "bumblebee"
 "insect". They can't both be true for the same thing, because
nouns are not insects. One is true for the word, the other is true for the
concept. So they need to be treated separately.

-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Amirouche Boubekki]

Héllo,

I am very happy of this news.

I a wiki newbie interested in using wikidata to do text analysis.
I try to follow the discussion here and on french wiktionary.

I take this as opportunity to try to sum up some concerns that are 
raised on french wiktionary [0]:


- How wikidata and wiktionary databases will be synchronized?

- Will editing wiktionary change? The concern is that this will make 
editing wiktionary more difficult for people.


- Also, what about bots. Will bots be allowed/able to edit wiktionary 
pages after the support of wikidata in wiktionary?


- Another concern is that if edits are done in some wiktionary and that 
edit has an impact on another wiktionary. People will have trouble to 
reconcil their opinion given they don't speak the same language. Can an 
edit in a wiktionary A break wiktionary B?


I understand that wikidata requires new code to support the organisation 
of new relations between the data. I understand that with wikidata it 
will be easy to create interwiki links and thesaurus kind of pages but 
what else can provide wikidata to wiktionary?


[0] https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/Projet:Coop%C3%A9ration/Wikidata

Thanks,

i⋅am⋅amz3

On 2016-09-13 15:17, Lydia Pintscher wrote:

Hey everyone :)

Wiktionary is our third-largest sister project, both in term of active
editors and readers. It is a unique resource, with the goal to provide
a dictionary for every language, in every language. Since the
beginning of Wikidata but increasingly over the past months I have
been getting more and more requests for supporting Wiktionary and
lexicographical data in Wikidata. Having this data available openly
and freely licensed would be a major step forward in automated
translation, text analysis, text generation and much more. It will
enable and ease research. And most importantly it will enable the
individual Wiktionary communities to work more closely together and
benefit from each other’s work.

With this and the increased demand to support Wikimedia Commons with
Wikidata, we have looked at the bigger picture and our options. I am
seeing a lot of overlap in the work we need to do to support
Wiktionary and Commons. I am also seeing increasing pressure to store
lexicographical data in existing items (which would be bad for many
reasons).

Because of this we will start implementing support for Wiktionary in
parallel to Commons based on our annual plan and quarterly plans. We
contacted several of our partners in order to get funding for this
additional work. I am happy that Google agreed to provide funding
(restricted to work on Wikidata). With this we can reorganize our team
and set up one part of the team to continue working on building out
the core of Wikidata and support for Wikipedia and Commons and the
other part will concentrate on Wiktionary. (To support and to extend
our work around Wikidata with the help of external funding sources was
our plan in our annual plan 2016:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_current_funding_period)

As a next step I’d like us all to have another careful look at the
latest proposal at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development. It has
been online for input in its current form for a year and the first
version is 3 years old now. So I am confident that the proposal is in
a good shape to start implementation. However I’d like to do a last
round of feedback with you all to make sure the concept really is
sane. To make it easier to understand there is now also a pdf
explaining the concept in a slightly different way:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikidata_for_Wiktionary_announcement.pdf
Please do go ahead and review it. If you have comments or questions
please leave them on the talk page of the latest proposal at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05.
I’d be especially interested in feedback from editors who are familiar
with both Wiktionary and Wikidata.

Getting support for Wiktionary done - just like for Commons - will
take some time but I am really excited about the opportunities it will
open up especially for languages that have so far not gotten much or
any technological support.


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 27/029/42207.

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


--
Amirouche ~ amz3 ~ http://www.hyperdev.fr

___
Wikidata maili

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Jakob Voß]

Hey everyone,

Happy to hear that Wiktionary will make it into Wikidata. Looks like a
long but promising way to go. I just happened to edit Wikidata items
about dictionary types as part of my work on taxonomy extraction (see
presentation http://dx.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.61767, paper
http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1676/paper2.pdf, and tool
https://www.npmjs.com/package/wikidata-taxonomy). The current state of
dictionary types and instances in Wikidata is given below, created with
"wdtaxonomy Q23622" on the command line.

I welcome everbody familiar with and/or interested in lexicography to
improve this classification (there is no WikiProject lexicography yet).
One problem of Wiktionary is that it tries to subsume all kinds of
dictionaries, making it less practical for specific use cases. I bet
that Wiktionary data in Wikidata will allow to extract special kinds of
dictionaries by selection of Wikidata properties and queries some day in
the future. Before this I hope that we also have some better
understanding of dictionary types.

Cheers
Jakob

dictionary (Q23622) •126 ×279 ↑↑
├──lexicon (Q8096) •38 ×4 ↑
├──lexicographic thesaurus (Q179797) •48 ×7
│  └──synonym dictionary (Q2376111) •1
├──orthographic dictionary (Q378914) •7
├──etymological dictionary (Q521983) •13 ×2
├──frequency list (Q697133) •6
├──glossary (Q859161) •35 ×14 ↑
├──visual dictionary (Q861712) •7 ×1
├──explanatory dictionary (Q897755) •6 ×4
│  ├──explanatory combinatorial dictionary (Q4459737) •2
│  └──monolingual learner's dictionary (Q6901667) •2
│ └──Advanced learner's dictionary (Q17011199) •2
├──encyclopedic dictionary (Q975413) •9 ×43 ↑
│  └──biographical encyclopedia (Q1787111) •9 ×69 ↑
│ ├──group biography (Q1499601) •1 ×1
│ ├──national biography (Q21050458) •1 ×1
│ ├──epoch biography (Q21050912) •1
│ └──dictionary of people (Q26721650) •3
├──pronouncing dictionary (Q1048400) •6
├──reverse dictionary (Q1304223) •9
├──machine-readable dictionary (Q1327461) •10
│  └──online dictionary (Q3327521) •6 ×9
│ └──Wiktionary language edition (Q22001389) ×7 ↑↑
├──single-field dictionary (Q1391417) •3 ×3 ↑
│  ├──law dictionary (Q1464287) •5
│  └──medical dictionary (Q6806507) •2 ×1
├──dictionary of foreign words (Q1455182) •1
├──concise dictionary (Q1575315) •1
├──idioticon (Q1656835) •2 ×1
├──??? (Q1722340) •1
├──learner's dictionary (Q1820290) •1
│  ╘══monolingual learner's dictionary (Q6901667) •2 …
├──??? (Q2134855) •1
├──rime dictionary (Q2191807) •7 ×4
├──rhyming dictionary (Q2210568) •11
├──conceptual dictionary (Q2361647) •6
╞══synonym dictionary (Q2376111) •1 …
├──pocket dictionary (Q2394934) •1
├──bilingual dictionary (Q2640207) •13 ×2
├──slang dictionary (Q3808854) •3 ×2
├──idiom dictionary (Q4492301) •5
├──Anagram dictionary (Q4750851) •1
├──author dictionary (Q5805540) •1
├──language for specific purposes dictionary (Q6486734) •1
├──phonetic dictionary (Q7187214) •1
├──picture dictionary (Q7191193) •2
├──specialized dictionary (Q7574915) •2
│  └──sub-field dictionary (Q7630614) •1
├──defining vocabulary (Q15192747) •1 ↑
└──multi-field dictionary (Q17094463) •1


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

Re: [Wikidata] Request for Property help (Schema.org mapping taskforce)

[Thad Guidry]

The benefit is directly towards WMDE's goals.

Specifically,
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_current_funding_period
Goal 1b: Grow the reach of Wikidata beyond the Wikimedia projects

A Wikidata property = Some external vocabulary property
A Wikidata property is similar to Some external vocabulary property
A Wikidata property is considered a parent class to Some external
vocabulary class  <-- Needs new property for support.
A Wikidata property is considered a child class to Some external vocabulary
class

What Schema.org needs now from Wikidata is the addition of a few new
properties that seem to be missing.  (I sound like a broken record now)

1. 'external subclass'.

​DONE.

Let's start there.  I don't even want to drag this discussion further than
beyond that 1 request, at this point in time.

Thad
+ThadGuidry 
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Request for Property help (Schema.org mapping taskforce)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not get it. At Wikidata we extensively point to other external
resources with identifiers for an item. Multiple references are the norm
and not the exception. One explicit benefit is that we can compare the data
in an external resource and find differences. This is a tangible benefit.

Obviously we can point to schema.org for this as well.

What more do you need and, what is the benefit?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 13 September 2016 at 19:38, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> All,
>
> Vocabularies have their own definitions already hosted.
> There is no need, therefore, to replicate those same definitions in
> Wikidata by creating a new Wikidata item (topic / entity) for each external
> vocabulary class or subclass or property.
>
> Instead, the best practice is to simply POINT to those external
> definitions, such as those in Schema.org, DBPedia.org, MusicBrainz, etc.,
> etc.
>
> (sorry, Andra, but unfortunately, your proposal to just create Wikidata
> items (recreating a vocabulary inside Wikidata, instead of using Wikidata
> properties to point to external URLs) makes Wikidata harder to use, not
> easier for itself, or for external partners or vocabularies.  I won't do
> this, its not required, its the wrong approach, and gives grief to others
> that query Wikidata)
>
> The right solution is to help propose and finish adding some of the
> missing 'external properties' in Wikidata, then we help the web to help us.
> By adding those missing properties in Wikidata, as is done nearly everyday
> from what I see.  We help external communities align with Wikidata and
> vice-versa.
>
> Andra - let me know once your 'external subclass' is ready for proposal
> review.
>
> Thad
> +ThadGuidry 
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The main thing to remember is that all these lexemes are in fact the labels
we currently hold. The relatisation that this is true is key.
Thanks,
  Gerard

On 13 September 2016 at 18:30, Daniel Kinzler 
wrote:

> Am 13.09.2016 um 17:16 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> > Hoi,
> > The database design for OmegaWiki had a distinction between the concept
> and all
> > the derivatives for them.
>
> Wikidata will have Lexemes and their Forms and Senses.
>
> > So bumblebee is more complex than just "instance of" noun. It is an
> English
> > noun. "Hommel" is connected as a Dutch noun for the same concept and
> "hommels"
> > is the Dutch plural...
>
> Wikidata would have a Lexeme for "bumblebee" (english noun) and one for
> "Hommel"
> (dutch noun). Both would have a sense that would describe them as a flying
> insect (and perhaps other word senses, such as Q1626135, a creater on the
> moon).
> The senses that refer to the flying insect would be considered
> translations of
> each other, and both senses would refer to the same concept.
>
> So "bumblebee" (insect) is a translation of "Hommel" (insect), and both
> refer to
> the genus Bombus (Q25407). "Hommel" (creater) would share the morphology of
> "Hommel" (insect), as it has the same forms (I assume), but it won't share
> the
> translations.
>
> Having lexeme-specific word-senses avoids the loss of connotation and
> nuance
> that you get when you force words of different languages on a shared
> meaning.
> The effect of referring to the same concept can still be achieved via the
> reference to a concept (item).
>
> --
> Daniel Kinzler
> Senior Software Developer
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Request for Property help (Schema.org mapping taskforce)

[Thad Guidry]

All,

Vocabularies have their own definitions already hosted.
There is no need, therefore, to replicate those same definitions in
Wikidata by creating a new Wikidata item (topic / entity) for each external
vocabulary class or subclass or property.

Instead, the best practice is to simply POINT to those external
definitions, such as those in Schema.org, DBPedia.org, MusicBrainz, etc.,
etc.

(sorry, Andra, but unfortunately, your proposal to just create Wikidata
items (recreating a vocabulary inside Wikidata, instead of using Wikidata
properties to point to external URLs) makes Wikidata harder to use, not
easier for itself, or for external partners or vocabularies.  I won't do
this, its not required, its the wrong approach, and gives grief to others
that query Wikidata)

The right solution is to help propose and finish adding some of the missing
'external properties' in Wikidata, then we help the web to help us.
By adding those missing properties in Wikidata, as is done nearly everyday
from what I see.  We help external communities align with Wikidata and
vice-versa.

Andra - let me know once your 'external subclass' is ready for proposal
review.

Thad
+ThadGuidry 
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Daniel Kinzler]

Am 13.09.2016 um 17:16 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> Hoi,
> The database design for OmegaWiki had a distinction between the concept and 
> all
> the derivatives for them.

Wikidata will have Lexemes and their Forms and Senses.

> So bumblebee is more complex than just "instance of" noun. It is an English
> noun. "Hommel" is connected as a Dutch noun for the same concept and "hommels"
> is the Dutch plural...

Wikidata would have a Lexeme for "bumblebee" (english noun) and one for "Hommel"
(dutch noun). Both would have a sense that would describe them as a flying
insect (and perhaps other word senses, such as Q1626135, a creater on the moon).
The senses that refer to the flying insect would be considered translations of
each other, and both senses would refer to the same concept.

So "bumblebee" (insect) is a translation of "Hommel" (insect), and both refer to
the genus Bombus (Q25407). "Hommel" (creater) would share the morphology of
"Hommel" (insect), as it has the same forms (I assume), but it won't share the
translations.

Having lexeme-specific word-senses avoids the loss of connotation and nuance
that you get when you force words of different languages on a shared meaning.
The effect of referring to the same concept can still be achieved via the
reference to a concept (item).

-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Jo]

I'm really glad to see this. I have been an avid contributor to Wiktionary
for a few years, until about 10 years ago. Then Openstreetmap caught my
attention and Wiktionary became dull as it was mostly fighting vandalism at
some point.

I'm certainly going to follow up on this,

Polyglot

2016-09-13 15:17 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher :

> Hey everyone :)
>
> Wiktionary is our third-largest sister project, both in term of active
> editors and readers. It is a unique resource, with the goal to provide
> a dictionary for every language, in every language. Since the
> beginning of Wikidata but increasingly over the past months I have
> been getting more and more requests for supporting Wiktionary and
> lexicographical data in Wikidata. Having this data available openly
> and freely licensed would be a major step forward in automated
> translation, text analysis, text generation and much more. It will
> enable and ease research. And most importantly it will enable the
> individual Wiktionary communities to work more closely together and
> benefit from each other’s work.
>
> With this and the increased demand to support Wikimedia Commons with
> Wikidata, we have looked at the bigger picture and our options. I am
> seeing a lot of overlap in the work we need to do to support
> Wiktionary and Commons. I am also seeing increasing pressure to store
> lexicographical data in existing items (which would be bad for many
> reasons).
>
> Because of this we will start implementing support for Wiktionary in
> parallel to Commons based on our annual plan and quarterly plans. We
> contacted several of our partners in order to get funding for this
> additional work. I am happy that Google agreed to provide funding
> (restricted to work on Wikidata). With this we can reorganize our team
> and set up one part of the team to continue working on building out
> the core of Wikidata and support for Wikipedia and Commons and the
> other part will concentrate on Wiktionary. (To support and to extend
> our work around Wikidata with the help of external funding sources was
> our plan in our annual plan 2016:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/
> 2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_
> form#Financials:_current_funding_period)
>
> As a next step I’d like us all to have another careful look at the
> latest proposal at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development. It has
> been online for input in its current form for a year and the first
> version is 3 years old now. So I am confident that the proposal is in
> a good shape to start implementation. However I’d like to do a last
> round of feedback with you all to make sure the concept really is
> sane. To make it easier to understand there is now also a pdf
> explaining the concept in a slightly different way:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikidata_for_
> Wiktionary_announcement.pdf
> Please do go ahead and review it. If you have comments or questions
> please leave them on the talk page of the latest proposal at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Wiktionary/
> Development/Proposals/2015-05.
> I’d be especially interested in feedback from editors who are familiar
> with both Wiktionary and Wikidata.
>
> Getting support for Wiktionary done - just like for Commons - will
> take some time but I am really excited about the opportunities it will
> open up especially for languages that have so far not gotten much or
> any technological support.
>
>
> 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 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Luca Martinelli]

This is great. :) Crossing fingers!

L.

2016-09-13 15:17 GMT+02:00 Lydia Pintscher :
> Hey everyone :)
>
> Wiktionary is our third-largest sister project, both in term of active
> editors and readers. It is a unique resource, with the goal to provide
> a dictionary for every language, in every language. Since the
> beginning of Wikidata but increasingly over the past months I have
> been getting more and more requests for supporting Wiktionary and
> lexicographical data in Wikidata. Having this data available openly
> and freely licensed would be a major step forward in automated
> translation, text analysis, text generation and much more. It will
> enable and ease research. And most importantly it will enable the
> individual Wiktionary communities to work more closely together and
> benefit from each other’s work.
>
> With this and the increased demand to support Wikimedia Commons with
> Wikidata, we have looked at the bigger picture and our options. I am
> seeing a lot of overlap in the work we need to do to support
> Wiktionary and Commons. I am also seeing increasing pressure to store
> lexicographical data in existing items (which would be bad for many
> reasons).
>
> Because of this we will start implementing support for Wiktionary in
> parallel to Commons based on our annual plan and quarterly plans. We
> contacted several of our partners in order to get funding for this
> additional work. I am happy that Google agreed to provide funding
> (restricted to work on Wikidata). With this we can reorganize our team
> and set up one part of the team to continue working on building out
> the core of Wikidata and support for Wikipedia and Commons and the
> other part will concentrate on Wiktionary. (To support and to extend
> our work around Wikidata with the help of external funding sources was
> our plan in our annual plan 2016:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_current_funding_period)
>
> As a next step I’d like us all to have another careful look at the
> latest proposal at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development. It has
> been online for input in its current form for a year and the first
> version is 3 years old now. So I am confident that the proposal is in
> a good shape to start implementation. However I’d like to do a last
> round of feedback with you all to make sure the concept really is
> sane. To make it easier to understand there is now also a pdf
> explaining the concept in a slightly different way:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikidata_for_Wiktionary_announcement.pdf
> Please do go ahead and review it. If you have comments or questions
> please leave them on the talk page of the latest proposal at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05.
> I’d be especially interested in feedback from editors who are familiar
> with both Wiktionary and Wikidata.
>
> Getting support for Wiktionary done - just like for Commons - will
> take some time but I am really excited about the opportunities it will
> open up especially for languages that have so far not gotten much or
> any technological support.
>
>
> 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 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata



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

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

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[James Forrester]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 at 06:18 Lydia Pintscher 
wrote:

> Because of this we will start implementing support for Wiktionary in
> parallel to Commons based on our annual plan and quarterly plans.
>

Fantastic news. I'm hugely excited about this.

J.
-- 

James D. Forrester
Lead Product Manager, Editing
Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
jforrester at wikimedia.org
 |
@jdforrester
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The database design for OmegaWiki had a distinction between the concept and
all the derivatives for them. The lexemes were all connected to the concept
and independent of the spelling they are connected to the concept.
Obviously this is language dependent.

So bumblebee is more complex than just "instance of" noun. It is an English
noun. "Hommel" is connected as a Dutch noun for the same concept and
"hommels" is the Dutch plural...

Obviously.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 13 September 2016 at 16:35, Daniel Kinzler 
wrote:

> Am 13.09.2016 um 15:37 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
> > Hoi,
> > You assume that it is not good to have lexicological information in our
> existing
> > items. With Wiktionary support you bring such information on board. It
> would be
> > really awkward when for every concept there has to be an item in two
> databases.
>
> It will be two namespaces in the same project.
>
> But we will not duplicate items. The proposed structure is not
> concept-centered
> like Omegawiki is. It will be centered about lexemes, like Wiktionary is,
> but
> with a higher level of granularity (a lexeme corresponds to one
> "morphological"
> section on a Wiktionary page).
>
> > Why is there this problem with lexicologival information and how will the
> > current data be linked to the future "Wiktionary-data" information if
> there are
> > to be two databases?
>
> Because "bumblebee"  "noun" conflicts with "bumblebee"
>  "insect". They can't both be true for the same thing, because
> nouns are not insects. One is true for the word, the other is true for the
> concept. So they need to be treated separately.
>
> --
> Daniel Kinzler
> Senior Software Developer
>
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Denny Vrandečić]

\o/

On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 6:18 AM Lydia Pintscher <
lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> Hey everyone :)
>
> Wiktionary is our third-largest sister project, both in term of active
> editors and readers. It is a unique resource, with the goal to provide
> a dictionary for every language, in every language. Since the
> beginning of Wikidata but increasingly over the past months I have
> been getting more and more requests for supporting Wiktionary and
> lexicographical data in Wikidata. Having this data available openly
> and freely licensed would be a major step forward in automated
> translation, text analysis, text generation and much more. It will
> enable and ease research. And most importantly it will enable the
> individual Wiktionary communities to work more closely together and
> benefit from each other’s work.
>
> With this and the increased demand to support Wikimedia Commons with
> Wikidata, we have looked at the bigger picture and our options. I am
> seeing a lot of overlap in the work we need to do to support
> Wiktionary and Commons. I am also seeing increasing pressure to store
> lexicographical data in existing items (which would be bad for many
> reasons).
>
> Because of this we will start implementing support for Wiktionary in
> parallel to Commons based on our annual plan and quarterly plans. We
> contacted several of our partners in order to get funding for this
> additional work. I am happy that Google agreed to provide funding
> (restricted to work on Wikidata). With this we can reorganize our team
> and set up one part of the team to continue working on building out
> the core of Wikidata and support for Wikipedia and Commons and the
> other part will concentrate on Wiktionary. (To support and to extend
> our work around Wikidata with the help of external funding sources was
> our plan in our annual plan 2016:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_current_funding_period
> )
>
> As a next step I’d like us all to have another careful look at the
> latest proposal at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development. It has
> been online for input in its current form for a year and the first
> version is 3 years old now. So I am confident that the proposal is in
> a good shape to start implementation. However I’d like to do a last
> round of feedback with you all to make sure the concept really is
> sane. To make it easier to understand there is now also a pdf
> explaining the concept in a slightly different way:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikidata_for_Wiktionary_announcement.pdf
> Please do go ahead and review it. If you have comments or questions
> please leave them on the talk page of the latest proposal at
>
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05
> .
> I’d be especially interested in feedback from editors who are familiar
> with both Wiktionary and Wikidata.
>
> Getting support for Wiktionary done - just like for Commons - will
> take some time but I am really excited about the opportunities it will
> open up especially for languages that have so far not gotten much or
> any technological support.
>
>
> 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 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

[Wikidata] Proposed update to the stable interfaces policy

[Daniel Kinzler]

Tomorrow I plan to apply the following update to the Stable Interface Policy:

https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Stable_Interface_Policy#Proposed_change_to_to_the_.22Extensibility.22_section

Please comment there if you have any objections.

Thanks!

-- 
Daniel Kinzler
Senior Software Developer

Wikimedia Deutschland
Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Léa Lacroix]

Hello Gerard,

We won't create a second database, only improve the existing one with new
types of entities, especially for Lexemes. They will have their own
specific structure, and will be linked to the concepts (items) by their
statements.

The statements you can make about a word are very different from the
statements you can make about a concept, so we will keep them separated.

Bests,

On 13 September 2016 at 15:37, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> You assume that it is not good to have lexicological information in our
> existing items. With Wiktionary support you bring such information on
> board. It would be really awkward when for every concept there has to be an
> item in two databases.
>
> Why is there this problem with lexicologival information and how will the
> current data be linked to the future "Wiktionary-data" information if there
> are to be two databases?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
>
> PS I cannot find this question or an answer in the PDF.
>
> On 13 September 2016 at 15:17, Lydia Pintscher <
> lydia.pintsc...@wikimedia.de> wrote:
>
>> Hey everyone :)
>>
>> Wiktionary is our third-largest sister project, both in term of active
>> editors and readers. It is a unique resource, with the goal to provide
>> a dictionary for every language, in every language. Since the
>> beginning of Wikidata but increasingly over the past months I have
>> been getting more and more requests for supporting Wiktionary and
>> lexicographical data in Wikidata. Having this data available openly
>> and freely licensed would be a major step forward in automated
>> translation, text analysis, text generation and much more. It will
>> enable and ease research. And most importantly it will enable the
>> individual Wiktionary communities to work more closely together and
>> benefit from each other’s work.
>>
>> With this and the increased demand to support Wikimedia Commons with
>> Wikidata, we have looked at the bigger picture and our options. I am
>> seeing a lot of overlap in the work we need to do to support
>> Wiktionary and Commons. I am also seeing increasing pressure to store
>> lexicographical data in existing items (which would be bad for many
>> reasons).
>>
>> Because of this we will start implementing support for Wiktionary in
>> parallel to Commons based on our annual plan and quarterly plans. We
>> contacted several of our partners in order to get funding for this
>> additional work. I am happy that Google agreed to provide funding
>> (restricted to work on Wikidata). With this we can reorganize our team
>> and set up one part of the team to continue working on building out
>> the core of Wikidata and support for Wikipedia and Commons and the
>> other part will concentrate on Wiktionary. (To support and to extend
>> our work around Wikidata with the help of external funding sources was
>> our plan in our annual plan 2016:
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-
>> 2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#
>> Financials:_current_funding_period)
>>
>> As a next step I’d like us all to have another careful look at the
>> latest proposal at
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development. It has
>> been online for input in its current form for a year and the first
>> version is 3 years old now. So I am confident that the proposal is in
>> a good shape to start implementation. However I’d like to do a last
>> round of feedback with you all to make sure the concept really is
>> sane. To make it easier to understand there is now also a pdf
>> explaining the concept in a slightly different way:
>> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikidata_for_Wiktion
>> ary_announcement.pdf
>> Please do go ahead and review it. If you have comments or questions
>> please leave them on the talk page of the latest proposal at
>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Wiktionary/Devel
>> opment/Proposals/2015-05.
>> I’d be especially interested in feedback from editors who are familiar
>> with both Wiktionary and Wikidata.
>>
>> Getting support for Wiktionary done - just like for Commons - will
>> take some time but I am really excited about the opportunities it will
>> open up especially for languages that have so far not gotten much or
>> any technological support.
>>
>>
>> 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 27/029/42207.
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>
>
> _

Re: [Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You assume that it is not good to have lexicological information in our
existing items. With Wiktionary support you bring such information on
board. It would be really awkward when for every concept there has to be an
item in two databases.

Why is there this problem with lexicologival information and how will the
current data be linked to the future "Wiktionary-data" information if there
are to be two databases?
Thanks,
 GerardM

PS I cannot find this question or an answer in the PDF.

On 13 September 2016 at 15:17, Lydia Pintscher  wrote:

> Hey everyone :)
>
> Wiktionary is our third-largest sister project, both in term of active
> editors and readers. It is a unique resource, with the goal to provide
> a dictionary for every language, in every language. Since the
> beginning of Wikidata but increasingly over the past months I have
> been getting more and more requests for supporting Wiktionary and
> lexicographical data in Wikidata. Having this data available openly
> and freely licensed would be a major step forward in automated
> translation, text analysis, text generation and much more. It will
> enable and ease research. And most importantly it will enable the
> individual Wiktionary communities to work more closely together and
> benefit from each other’s work.
>
> With this and the increased demand to support Wikimedia Commons with
> Wikidata, we have looked at the bigger picture and our options. I am
> seeing a lot of overlap in the work we need to do to support
> Wiktionary and Commons. I am also seeing increasing pressure to store
> lexicographical data in existing items (which would be bad for many
> reasons).
>
> Because of this we will start implementing support for Wiktionary in
> parallel to Commons based on our annual plan and quarterly plans. We
> contacted several of our partners in order to get funding for this
> additional work. I am happy that Google agreed to provide funding
> (restricted to work on Wikidata). With this we can reorganize our team
> and set up one part of the team to continue working on building out
> the core of Wikidata and support for Wikipedia and Commons and the
> other part will concentrate on Wiktionary. (To support and to extend
> our work around Wikidata with the help of external funding sources was
> our plan in our annual plan 2016:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/
> 2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_
> form#Financials:_current_funding_period)
>
> As a next step I’d like us all to have another careful look at the
> latest proposal at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development. It has
> been online for input in its current form for a year and the first
> version is 3 years old now. So I am confident that the proposal is in
> a good shape to start implementation. However I’d like to do a last
> round of feedback with you all to make sure the concept really is
> sane. To make it easier to understand there is now also a pdf
> explaining the concept in a slightly different way:
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikidata_for_
> Wiktionary_announcement.pdf
> Please do go ahead and review it. If you have comments or questions
> please leave them on the talk page of the latest proposal at
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Wiktionary/
> Development/Proposals/2015-05.
> I’d be especially interested in feedback from editors who are familiar
> with both Wiktionary and Wikidata.
>
> Getting support for Wiktionary done - just like for Commons - will
> take some time but I am really excited about the opportunities it will
> open up especially for languages that have so far not gotten much or
> any technological support.
>
>
> 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 27/029/42207.
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

[Wikidata] Let's move forward with support for Wiktionary

[Lydia Pintscher]

Hey everyone :)

Wiktionary is our third-largest sister project, both in term of active
editors and readers. It is a unique resource, with the goal to provide
a dictionary for every language, in every language. Since the
beginning of Wikidata but increasingly over the past months I have
been getting more and more requests for supporting Wiktionary and
lexicographical data in Wikidata. Having this data available openly
and freely licensed would be a major step forward in automated
translation, text analysis, text generation and much more. It will
enable and ease research. And most importantly it will enable the
individual Wiktionary communities to work more closely together and
benefit from each other’s work.

With this and the increased demand to support Wikimedia Commons with
Wikidata, we have looked at the bigger picture and our options. I am
seeing a lot of overlap in the work we need to do to support
Wiktionary and Commons. I am also seeing increasing pressure to store
lexicographical data in existing items (which would be bad for many
reasons).

Because of this we will start implementing support for Wiktionary in
parallel to Commons based on our annual plan and quarterly plans. We
contacted several of our partners in order to get funding for this
additional work. I am happy that Google agreed to provide funding
(restricted to work on Wikidata). With this we can reorganize our team
and set up one part of the team to continue working on building out
the core of Wikidata and support for Wikipedia and Commons and the
other part will concentrate on Wiktionary. (To support and to extend
our work around Wikidata with the help of external funding sources was
our plan in our annual plan 2016:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:APG/Proposals/2015-2016_round1/Wikimedia_Deutschland_e.V./Proposal_form#Financials:_current_funding_period)

As a next step I’d like us all to have another careful look at the
latest proposal at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary/Development. It has
been online for input in its current form for a year and the first
version is 3 years old now. So I am confident that the proposal is in
a good shape to start implementation. However I’d like to do a last
round of feedback with you all to make sure the concept really is
sane. To make it easier to understand there is now also a pdf
explaining the concept in a slightly different way:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wikidata_for_Wiktionary_announcement.pdf
Please do go ahead and review it. If you have comments or questions
please leave them on the talk page of the latest proposal at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata_talk:Wiktionary/Development/Proposals/2015-05.
I’d be especially interested in feedback from editors who are familiar
with both Wiktionary and Wikidata.

Getting support for Wiktionary done - just like for Commons - will
take some time but I am really excited about the opportunities it will
open up especially for languages that have so far not gotten much or
any technological support.


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 27/029/42207.

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

Re: [Wikidata] Request for Property help (Schema.org mapping taskforce)

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Please explain how this would make a practical difference. We do not need
it unless there is a structural need.

Please describe practical benefits.
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 13 September 2016 at 12:28, Andra Waagmeester  wrote:

> Thad,
>
> I actually don't see how using internal properties would go against
> Wikidata policy. There is the  requirement of notability, "
>
>1.  It fulfills *some structural need*, for example: it is needed to
>make statements made in other items more useful." [1]
>
> I might be wrong, but I would consider creating a new item to describe a
> subclass, fulfilling a structural need.
> Modelling classes and subclasses this way, also makes writing federated
> queries where the WDQS is used in the SERVICE operator easier. I only need
> to consider one wikidata property to bridge Wikidata with external sources,
> and deal with child and parent classes in Wikidata.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andra
>
>
> [1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Thad Guidry  wrote:
>
>> Andra,
>>
>> That type of powerful expressiveness is certainly doable in Wikidata.
>> To blatantly create properties on a whim by pseudo proxy of using
>> Wikidata items to do the heavy lifting.
>> But that idea is against most of what I have seen in Wikidata
>> documentation, policy, and community best practices say to do.
>>
>> The right way forward is to patiently wait for the new property to exist,
>> and then we can continue.
>> Thank you for drafting the property proposal by the way.  I'll wait for
>> it for review.
>>
>> Here's some examples where we have subclasses under these :
>>
>>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4026292  Action
>> should also ideally have all of Schema.org's subclasses of Action
>> that we have like
>> http://schema.org/TravelAction
>>
>>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11410  Game
>> should also ideally have the subclass of Videogame
>>   http://schema.org/VideoGame
>>
>> Here's an example of flipping it around and saying that Schema.org can be
>> used as an 'external parent class'
>>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7889  Videogame
>> should also ideally have a proeprty on it for 'external parent class'
>> or something similar with the value of
>>   http://schema.org/Game
>>
>> Our full heirarchy is here for your perusal :
>> http://schema.org/docs/full.html
>>
>> Thad
>> +ThadGuidry 
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wikidata mailing list
>> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>>
>>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

Re: [Wikidata] Request for Property help (Schema.org mapping taskforce)

[Andra Waagmeester]

Thad,

I actually don't see how using internal properties would go against
Wikidata policy. There is the  requirement of notability, "

   1.  It fulfills *some structural need*, for example: it is needed to
   make statements made in other items more useful." [1]

I might be wrong, but I would consider creating a new item to describe a
subclass, fulfilling a structural need.
Modelling classes and subclasses this way, also makes writing federated
queries where the WDQS is used in the SERVICE operator easier. I only need
to consider one wikidata property to bridge Wikidata with external sources,
and deal with child and parent classes in Wikidata.

Cheers,

Andra


[1] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Notability


On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 3:34 AM, Thad Guidry  wrote:

> Andra,
>
> That type of powerful expressiveness is certainly doable in Wikidata.
> To blatantly create properties on a whim by pseudo proxy of using Wikidata
> items to do the heavy lifting.
> But that idea is against most of what I have seen in Wikidata
> documentation, policy, and community best practices say to do.
>
> The right way forward is to patiently wait for the new property to exist,
> and then we can continue.
> Thank you for drafting the property proposal by the way.  I'll wait for it
> for review.
>
> Here's some examples where we have subclasses under these :
>
>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4026292  Action
> should also ideally have all of Schema.org's subclasses of Action that
> we have like
> http://schema.org/TravelAction
>
>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11410  Game
> should also ideally have the subclass of Videogame
>   http://schema.org/VideoGame
>
> Here's an example of flipping it around and saying that Schema.org can be
> used as an 'external parent class'
>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7889  Videogame
> should also ideally have a proeprty on it for 'external parent class'
> or something similar with the value of
>   http://schema.org/Game
>
> Our full heirarchy is here for your perusal :
> http://schema.org/docs/full.html
>
> Thad
> +ThadGuidry 
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>
>
___
Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata

[Wikidata] Weekly Summary #226

[Léa Lacroix]

Hello :)

This is the Wikidata summary of the week before 2016-09-10.
Events /Press/Blogs


   - Upcoming: Keynote by Lydia Pintscher at DBpedia conference
   , September 15th, Leipzig.
   - Upcoming: Wikidata workshop for beginners
   , September 16, Paris
   - Upcoming: Semantic MediaWiki Conference
   , September
   28-30, Frankfurt
   - Upcoming: Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing
   ) & Liam Wyatt (
   User:Wittylama ) speaking
   about GLAM-Wiki (including Wikidata) in Warsaw, 19 October. Details tbc.
   - Upcoming: Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing
   ) speaking & running
   workshop about Wikidata at SFK 16  ("Software
   Freedom Kosova Conference") in Pristina, 21-23 October.
   - Research on WikiProject Knowledge Organization Systems
   

   presented at 15th NKOS workshop at TPDL: *Classification of Knowledge
   Organization Systems with Wikidata*: Presentation
    and Paper
   .
   - Being a Volunteer Developer for Wikimedia projects: An Interview with
   Tpt
   

   - Sunday Query: The 200 Oldest Living French Actresses
   ,
   query tutorial by Harmonia Amanda
   - How to prototype Wikidata entities
    (in French)
   by Poulpy

Other Noteworthy Stuff

   - We have new graphic material to present Wikidata
   .
   Feel free to use these files in your slides/talks/documents :)
   - #SundayQuery on Twitter
   
:
   every Sunday, you can ask for help or advice about SPARQL queries, how to
   build or fix it, some SPARQL-ninjas will be there to answer you!
   - Researcher? You can participate in the WSDM Cup 2017
    challenge and improve Wikidata vandalism
   detection
   - How to build a query
   

   by Pigsonthewing
   - Wikipedia gets Map links and Geoshapes service using Wikidata
   


Did you know?

   - Newest properties
   : Scottish Charity
   number , Rock Hall of Fame
   ID , has grammatical mood
   , Minnesota legislator ID
   , UGent Memorialis id
   , enclosure
   , event distance
   , Australian Classification
   , Runeberg book ID
   , Runeberg author ID
   , Crossref funder ID
   , Findsmiley ID
   , iNaturalist taxon ID
   , birthday
   , molecule conformation
   , repeals
   , United States Reports ID
   , CiNetMag person ID
   , YouTheater ID
   , elFilm person ID
   , elFilm film ID
   , EDb person ID
   , EDb film ID
   , SourehCinema person ID
   , SourehCinema film ID
   , OFDb ID
   
   - Query examples:
  - Posthumous marriages
  

Re: [Wikidata] Request for Property help (Schema.org mapping taskforce)

[Andrew Gray]

I'm a little confused by this suggestion - surely on Wikidata, the
natural thing is for Game (Q11410) should have the subclass of
Videogame (Q7889), or vice versa, and each of those items should link
out to their equivalents of schema.org/Game / schema.org/VideoGame.

I'm not sure why we then need to add that Game has an external
subclass of schema.org/VideoGame - surely this is just repeating
information we already have? Mirroring all of schema.org, including
its internal relationships, directly within Wikidata seems a bit
excessive.

Am I missing something really obvious here? Nemo's suggestion to just
create a new Wikidata entry (item, topic, Q-number) for any missing
concepts, and then use the existing class properties, seems to solve
the core problem without introducing excessive complexity...

Andrew.

On 13 September 2016 at 02:34, Thad Guidry  wrote:
> Andra,
>
> That type of powerful expressiveness is certainly doable in Wikidata.
> To blatantly create properties on a whim by pseudo proxy of using Wikidata
> items to do the heavy lifting.
> But that idea is against most of what I have seen in Wikidata documentation,
> policy, and community best practices say to do.
>
> The right way forward is to patiently wait for the new property to exist,
> and then we can continue.
> Thank you for drafting the property proposal by the way.  I'll wait for it
> for review.
>
> Here's some examples where we have subclasses under these :
>
>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4026292  Action
> should also ideally have all of Schema.org's subclasses of Action that
> we have like
> http://schema.org/TravelAction
>
>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q11410  Game
> should also ideally have the subclass of Videogame
>   http://schema.org/VideoGame
>
> Here's an example of flipping it around and saying that Schema.org can be
> used as an 'external parent class'
>   https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q7889  Videogame
> should also ideally have a proeprty on it for 'external parent class' or
> something similar with the value of
>   http://schema.org/Game
>
> Our full heirarchy is here for your perusal :
> http://schema.org/docs/full.html
>
> Thad
> +ThadGuidry
>
>
> ___
> Wikidata mailing list
> Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata
>



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

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

[Wikidata] Greater than 400 char limit for Wikidata string data types

[Sebastian Burgstaller]

Hi all,

I think this topic might have been discussed many months ago. For
certain data types in the chemical compound space (P233, canonical
smiles, P2017 isomeric smiles and P234 Inchi key) a higher character
limit than 400 would be really helpful (1500 to 2000 chars (I sense
that this might cause problems with SPARQL)). Are there any plans on
implementing this? In general, for quality assurance, many string
property types would profit from a fixed max string length.

Best,
Sebastian

Sebastian Burgstaller-Muehlbacher, PhD
Research Associate
Andrew Su Lab
MEM-216, Department of Molecular and Experimental Medicine
The Scripps Research Institute
10550 North Torrey Pines Road
La Jolla, CA 92037
@sebotic

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