Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikimedia-l] Meeting about the support of Wiktionary in Wikidata

[Mathieu Stumpf]

Le 2013-08-10 09:30, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :

[Sorry for cross-posting]

Yes, I agree that the OmegaWiki community should be involved in the
discussions, and I pointed GerardM to our proposals whenever and
discussions, using him as a liaison. We also looked and keep looking
at the OmegaWiki data model to see what we are missing.

Our latest proposal is different from OmegaWiki in two major points:

* our primary goal is to provide support for structured data in the
Wiktionaries. We do not plan to be the main resource ourselves, where
readers come to in order to look up something, we merely provide
structured data that a Wiktionary may or may not use. This parallels
the role of Wikidata has with regards to Wikipedia. This also
highlights the difference between Wikidata and OmegaWiki, since
OmegaWiki's goal is "to create a dictionary of all words of all
languages, including lexical, terminological and ontological
information."


Before defining any structure, we should define what services
we aim to provide with it, what mecanisms we want to provide for 
afterthought
extensions, and what services we don't want to provide so we can 
exclude

their constraints from our requirement specification.

For example, one of my current project involve phoneme/grapheme 
associations,
and it would be convenient for me to have a service which would allow 
me
to formulate request like "what grapheme is noting the phoneme '/ʃ/' in 
French"
or at least "what French words include the phoneme '/ʃ/'". In an other 
study
of phoneme combinations usage, I would be interested to be able to make 
queries
like "list all languages where the phoneme combination '/str/' is 
used",

"list all English words with this combination".

To my mind it would be really convenient to be able to perform that 
within any Mediawiki
project. Of course our primary concern here are Wiktionaries entries, 
but the previous
quoted needs come from a research project I'm doing on Wikiversity. 
Combined with
Scribunto, such a request service would allow to generate dynamic 
auto-updated tables

of phonemes/graphemes associations and combinations in each language.



* a smaller difference is the data model. Wikidata's latest proposal
to support Wiktionary is centered around lexemes, and we do not 
assume
that there is such a things as a language-independent defined 
meaning.

But no matter what model we end up with, it is important to ensure
that the bulk of the data could freely flow between the projects, and
even though we might disagree on this issue in the modeling, it is
ensured that the exchange of data is widely possible.


We should define what we mean with language in the first place. After 
all
sign languages are languages by their own, while British sign language 
is

different from French sign language. Do we want to provide a way to get
definitions for this kind of languagelexical entries? While it would 
not
be easy, with some image processing you may imagine a solution that 
return

gestual lexemes matching a user geasture entry through a webcam.



We tried to keep notes on the discussion we had today:



I added the reference of this work as well as a reference to this 
thread

on [[m:Wiktionary Future]].



My major take home message for me is that:
* the proposal needs more visual elements, especially a mock-up or
sketch of how it would look like and how it could be used on the
Wiktionaries
* there is no generally accepted place for a discussion that involves
all Wiktionary projects. Still, my initial decision to have the
discussion on the Wikidata wiki was not a good one, and it should and
will be moved to Meta.

Having said that, the current proposal for the data model of how to
support Wiktionary with Wikidata seems to have garnered a lot of
support so far. So this is what I will continue building upon. 
Further

comments are extremely welcomed. You can find it here:



As said, it will be moved to Meta, as soon as the requested mockups
and extensions are done.


I will happily help you to do it.




Cheers,
Denny

2013/8/10 Samuel Klein 


Hello,

> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland  
wrote:

>> I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.

Agreed.

On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale  
wrote:
> Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much 
no,

> because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,

This is not actually the case.
There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at
least simply providing hosting.  It stalled because the code needed 
a

security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to
put some time into that.  The OW editors and dev were very 
interested
in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a 
combined

project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and
translations.

Recap: 

Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikimedia-l] Meeting about the support of Wiktionary in Wikidata

[David Cuenca]

To add up a couple of comments to what Denny said, from my experience with
Wikisource, reaching out to international, loosely connected communities is
already a big challenge on its own. I would like to invite Wiktionary
contributors to take a look to this Individual Engagement Grant project
that Aubrey and me are doing for Wikisource, because maybe it would make
sense that a group of involved Wiktionarians started a similar initiative
for Wiktionary. The original application can be found here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision

And the midterm report:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision

If anyone from the Wiktionary community wants to step forward, I would be
more than happy to share experiences and provide advice.

Cheers,
Micru

On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Denny Vrandečić <
denny.vrande...@wikimedia.de> wrote:

> [Sorry for cross-posting]
>
> Yes, I agree that the OmegaWiki community should be involved in the
> discussions, and I pointed GerardM to our proposals whenever and
> discussions, using him as a liaison. We also looked and keep looking at the
> OmegaWiki data model to see what we are missing.
>
> Our latest proposal is different from OmegaWiki in two major points:
>
> * our primary goal is to provide support for structured data in the
> Wiktionaries. We do not plan to be the main resource ourselves, where
> readers come to in order to look up something, we merely provide structured
> data that a Wiktionary may or may not use. This parallels the role of
> Wikidata has with regards to Wikipedia. This also highlights the difference
> between Wikidata and OmegaWiki, since OmegaWiki's goal is "to create a
> dictionary of all words of all languages, including lexical, terminological
> and ontological information."
>
> * a smaller difference is the data model. Wikidata's latest proposal to
> support Wiktionary is centered around lexemes, and we do not assume that
> there is such a things as a language-independent defined meaning. But no
> matter what model we end up with, it is important to ensure that the bulk
> of the data could freely flow between the projects, and even though we
> might disagree on this issue in the modeling, it is ensured that the
> exchange of data is widely possible.
>
> We tried to keep notes on the discussion we had today: <
> http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata>
>
> My major take home message for me is that:
> * the proposal needs more visual elements, especially a mock-up or sketch
> of how it would look like and how it could be used on the Wiktionaries
> * there is no generally accepted place for a discussion that involves all
> Wiktionary projects. Still, my initial decision to have the discussion on
> the Wikidata wiki was not a good one, and it should and will be moved to
> Meta.
>
> Having said that, the current proposal for the data model of how to support
> Wiktionary with Wikidata seems to have garnered a lot of support so far. So
> this is what I will continue building upon. Further comments are extremely
> welcomed. You can find it here:
>
> 
>
> As said, it will be moved to Meta, as soon as the requested mockups and
> extensions are done.
>
> Cheers,
> Denny
>
>
>
>
>
> 2013/8/10 Samuel Klein 
>
> > Hello,
> >
> > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland 
> wrote:
> > >> I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.
> >
> > Agreed.
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale 
> wrote:
> > > Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much no,
> > > because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,
> >
> > This is not actually the case.
> > There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at
> > least simply providing hosting.  It stalled because the code needed a
> > security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to
> > put some time into that.  The OW editors and dev were very interested
> > in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined
> > project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and
> > translations.
> >
> > Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the
> > criteria for requesting WMF adoption.
> > * It is well-defined on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki
> > * It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding the
> > scope of free knowledge
> > * It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea that
> > grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years
> > alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles.
> > * It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption.
> > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
> >
> > Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary
> > update -- and this idea was proposed and taken s

Re: [Wikidata-l] [Wikimedia-l] Meeting about the support of Wiktionary in Wikidata

[Denny Vrandečić]

[Sorry for cross-posting]

Yes, I agree that the OmegaWiki community should be involved in the
discussions, and I pointed GerardM to our proposals whenever and
discussions, using him as a liaison. We also looked and keep looking at the
OmegaWiki data model to see what we are missing.

Our latest proposal is different from OmegaWiki in two major points:

* our primary goal is to provide support for structured data in the
Wiktionaries. We do not plan to be the main resource ourselves, where
readers come to in order to look up something, we merely provide structured
data that a Wiktionary may or may not use. This parallels the role of
Wikidata has with regards to Wikipedia. This also highlights the difference
between Wikidata and OmegaWiki, since OmegaWiki's goal is "to create a
dictionary of all words of all languages, including lexical, terminological
and ontological information."

* a smaller difference is the data model. Wikidata's latest proposal to
support Wiktionary is centered around lexemes, and we do not assume that
there is such a things as a language-independent defined meaning. But no
matter what model we end up with, it is important to ensure that the bulk
of the data could freely flow between the projects, and even though we
might disagree on this issue in the modeling, it is ensured that the
exchange of data is widely possible.

We tried to keep notes on the discussion we had today: <
http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata>

My major take home message for me is that:
* the proposal needs more visual elements, especially a mock-up or sketch
of how it would look like and how it could be used on the Wiktionaries
* there is no generally accepted place for a discussion that involves all
Wiktionary projects. Still, my initial decision to have the discussion on
the Wikidata wiki was not a good one, and it should and will be moved to
Meta.

Having said that, the current proposal for the data model of how to support
Wiktionary with Wikidata seems to have garnered a lot of support so far. So
this is what I will continue building upon. Further comments are extremely
welcomed. You can find it here:



As said, it will be moved to Meta, as soon as the requested mockups and
extensions are done.

Cheers,
Denny





2013/8/10 Samuel Klein 

> Hello,
>
> > On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland  wrote:
> >> I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.
>
> Agreed.
>
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale  wrote:
> > Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much no,
> > because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,
>
> This is not actually the case.
> There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at
> least simply providing hosting.  It stalled because the code needed a
> security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to
> put some time into that.  The OW editors and dev were very interested
> in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined
> project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and
> translations.
>
> Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the
> criteria for requesting WMF adoption.
> * It is well-defined on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki
> * It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding the
> scope of free knowledge
> * It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea that
> grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years
> alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles.
> * It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption.
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
>
> Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary
> update -- and this idea was proposed and taken seriously by the OW
> devs -- their community of contributors should be part of discussions
> about how to solve the Wiktionary problem that they were the first to
> dedicate themselves to.
>
> Regards,
> Sam.
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list
> wikimedi...@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



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