Thank you for the clarification, Gerard. I was indeed misunderstanding the proposal.
We need to find a central place to discuss a proposal. 2013/3/11 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> > Hoi, > There is no point at all in maintaining the software currently used by > OmegaWiki. That would be foolish. Nobody who knows OmegaWiki will ask for > that. > > What we are asking for is that we ensure that the structures that exist in > OmegaWiki are replicated in Wikidata for reasons that are clear and > obvious. Technically there are a few things that make sense to have.. > > For instance.. In the Dutch language we have a noun, a verb an adjective > .... we do not have a country in this class. A noun can be male, female or > neutral .... we do not have a stupid. We have singular and plural and we > do not have dual like in Arabic. > > When there is a concept, we have synonyms and translations that are used as > such but do not cover the original concept well. We want to be able to > indicate this. > > Really Denny, all we need is to keep the structure, the data. We do not > even want to be dogmatic about this (too much). What we want are things > that fulfil a need, that have a purpose. > Thanks, > GerardM > > > On 11 March 2013 15:51, Denny Vrandečić <[email protected] > >wrote: > > > Sorry about the wrong link, I meant this IEG proposal: > > > > < > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Wiktionary_-_the_way_it_should_be > > > > > > > but as far as I can tell, this one didn't make it into round 1 (pity, > > something like that would have made sense, but I understand that the > > proposal was obviously not detailed enough. Whatever.) > > > > I fully agree with Andrea and Nemo that some use cases would be very easy > > to implement, especially linking between the projects. Commons and > > Wiktionary though are very different and require more thought: > > > > Commons: > > * easy goals: link to appropriate items for some of the pages in Commons, > > use data from Wikidata in the creator namespace and similar > > * more engaging: add metadata to the media files in Commons itself and > link > > them to each other and to Wikidata > > > > Wiktionary: > > * easy goals: none. The conceptualization of Wiktionary simply is not a > > direct fit to the conceptualization in Wikipedia and Wikidata. > > We need to figure out how they work together. Maybe this page is a good > > start, and maybe we should collect the ideas there. > > > > <https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary< > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary> > > > > > > > I mean, OmegaWiki has been around for a while, and they learned many, > > extremely valuable lessons. A lot of work has went into it, and it would > be > > a shame not to build on its experiences and lessons. But I would like to > > ask the question whether it is the right software or not, even though it > is > > a painful question. But please be reminded that I have spent many years > in > > the development of Semantic MediaWiki, with the one goal to have it > > switched on the Wikipedias -- and then to come to the conclusion to *not* > > use the software as is, and start from scratch. > > > > We need a discussion on Wiktionary, and how it can evolve, and if it even > > should. And I do not think that a cross-mailing list discussion like the > > current one is the right place, and I do not even know where the right > > place is. > > > > So, first question: where should this discussion take place? > > > > Cheers, > > Denny > > > > > > > > > > > > 2013/3/11 Federico Leva (Nemo) <[email protected]> > > > > > Denny Vrandečić, 11/03/2013 14:52: > > > > > > There is currently a number of things going on re the future of > > >> Wiktionary. > > >> > > >> There is, for example, the suggestion to adopt OmegaWiki, which could > > >> potentially complicate a Wikibase-Solution in the future (but then > > again, > > >> structured data is often rather easy to transform): > > >> < > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Requests_for_comment/**Adopt_OmegaWiki< > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki> > > >> > > > >> > > >> There is this grant proposal for elaborating the future of Wiktionary, > > >> which I consider a potentially smarter first step: > > >> > > >> < > > >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/**wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_** > > >> Wikisource_strategic_vision< > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vision > > > > > >> > > >>> > > >>> > > > That's Wikisource. :) > > > > > > > > > > > >> There's this discussion on Wikdiata itself: > > >> > > >> <https://www.wikidata.org/**wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary< > > https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary> > > >> > > > >> > > >> And I know that Daniel K. is very interested in working into this > > >> direction. > > >> > > >> Personally, I regard Wiktionary as the third priority, following > > Wikipedia > > >> and Commons. A lot of the other projects -- like Wikivoyage or > > Wikisource > > >> -- can be served with only small changes to Wikidata as it is, but > both > > >> Commons and Wiktionary would require a bit of thought (and here again, > > >> Commons much less than Wiktionary). > > >> > > > > > > Actually Wikiquote and Wikivoyage use interwikis exactly like > Wikipedia; > > > Commons in the same way except it's interproject; Wiktionary in the > same > > > way except it's case-sensitive and not about concepts (opr about a > > stricter > > > definition of concept); Wikisource in a completely different way; > > > Wikibooks, Wikinews and Wikiversity I'm not sure. > > > As for phase II, it's another story. Wikisource and Commons would > benefit > > > a lot from it; for Wiktionary it could be a revolution; for Wikispecies > > > idem but with less effort (?); Wikiquote would become > > > > > > > > > I would appreciate a discussion with > > >> the Wiktionary-Communities, and also to make them more aware of the > > >> OmegaWiki proposal, the potential of Wikidata for Wiktionary, etc. > Just > > to > > >> give a comparison: it took a few months to write the original Wikidata > > >> proposal, and it was up for discussion for several months before it > was > > >> decided and acted upon. I would strongly advise to again choose slow > and > > >> careful planning over hastened decisions. > > >> > > > > > > It's impossible to plan or discuss anything without knowing what > matters. > > > > > > Nemo > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list > [email protected] > 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 [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
