Scope is also called domain by some language folks. Basically two entries can be textually identical but still describe completly different topics. For example "web" as in fabric and in networking.
In Wikipedia similar concepts often gets a common article, and often without explicitly stating the differences. Sometimes differences goes unnoticed because of cultural differences. Those can be very difficult to solve. Jeblad On 1. apr. 2012 21.25, "Gregor Hagedorn" <g.m.haged...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 1 April 2012 13:04, Markus Krötzsch <markus.kroetz...@cs.ox.ac.uk> > wrote: > > This is a valid point. It is intended to address this as follows: > > * Wikidata items (our "content pages") will be in *exact* correspondence > to > > (zero or more) Wikipedia articles in different languages. > > * Differences in scope will lead to different Wikidata items. > > * Relationships such as "broader" or "narrower" can be expressed as > > relations between these items, if desired. > > This is a technically valid solution. Socially, I fear it would lead > to endless uncertainty which mechanism to use. Few abstract entities > will have exactly the same delimitation/width, but where should one > switch from one method of linking (one wikidata page with several more > less closely matching wikipedia pages) to the other (several wikidata > pages, one for each wikipedia page in each language)? > > Also, importing data will be a nightmare, because the concepts used in > imported data will have to be compared with all wikipedias. One > Wikipedia-language-version has the post-WWII extent of Russia as well > as the current and another Wikipedia-language-version has them > separated. It may not have mattered before and only one Wikidata page > links to both language-versions. However at some point historical data > are imported and suddently Wikidata needs to be reorganized to have > two pages. ... Just thinking loud - this may be unavoidable perhaps... > > However, my gut feeling is that if you plan to avoid relations between > Wikidata and Wikipedia, it might be a more comprehensible model to > then always using only one method, i.e. have a 0 to 1 or 1 to 1 > relation between Wikidata page and Wikipedia page only, and express > everything else in Wikidata to Wikidata page relations. These > relations are then easily traceable and updateable, just as the > broadness or narrowness of a page in a given Wikipedia develops over > time. > > > In general, Wikidata will not be able to replace all interwiki links: it > > will remain possible to define additional links in each Wikipedia to > cover > > cases where the relationship between articles is not exact. > > This worries me. It means that there will be forever conflicting > systems of editing interwiki links. If everything can be achieved with > Wikipedia, but only a subset with Wikidata, it spells social adoption > danger. > > _______________________________________________ > 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
