I do appreciate that Denny Jeroen and Markus cross-fertilize. But
the money is flowing now towards _REWRITING SMW FROM SCRATCH_, which
worries me as I am fairly sure there will be no good migration path at
the inevitable time SMW support is terminated. The fact that one (is
said) to be only for small wikis (which I dispute) and the other is not,
is hardly a functional difference that will prevent confusion overlap
inefficiency. As I've said elsewhere, saying one is capable of
multi-lingual support while implying the other is not, is simply wrong
-- smw is fine for multilingual support if the implemented data model
has appropriate language tags. (note: I am creating a multi-lingual wiki
now, based on smw, for a client). 

My point is that for maximum
success, wikidata should strive to welcome the smw community (back) into
the mw community, to have support from those who put their professional
faith in smw. By your own admission that there is substantial overlap,
Wikidata will consequently and permanently split the SMW community, and
this sickens me. 


On 13.06.2012 09:04, Lydia Pintscher wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 5:36 PM, <jmccl...@hypergrove.com> wrote:

>> Hi Lydia, 'We' are people who committed professionally to the SMW
(and Halo) approach to enterprise computing and 'we' are clients who
have invested in this approach. We'll want to install wikidata-client
along with smw to get at infobox data (if such is the ultimate design).
We'll want to install wikidata-host to stay current with where all the
investment dollars, the technical interest, etc, are flowing. Yet you
assert that smw & wikidata have different target groups (without
defining either).
> Ok then let me define it more clearly. Wikidata's
clear goal is to
> serve the Wikipedias. Use in other contexts will also
be possible and
> encouraged but Wikipedia is the main target. It is for
a project that
> values references for all the structured data and it is
supposed to
> serve a multi-language audience.
> SMW is well established
and used in professional and non-professional
> projects outside of
Wikipedia. It usually serves smaller wikis and has
> quite some use in
companies for their internal knowledge management.
> Obviously there is
overlap but in the end the projects are distinct
> enough to co-exist
just fine. Markus wrote a long email about this
> here:

>> However, I believe they are the SAME because their objectives are
the same: to integrate structured data into the MW editing/display
environment. There's not room for multiple implementations of tools with
the same objective.
> If you define the goal that broadly then yes it
might be the same for
> both. But this is actually too broad. See


[1] http://www.wikimedia.de
Wikidata-l mailing list

Reply via email to