Other possibilities (not necessarily all together): - new datatype "label", with the value to be indexed as an alias - use qualifiers on label statements to add lexical data or to link with declination tables - consider "labels" internally as independent items, but don't display them as such
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 4:28 PM, David Cuenca <[email protected]> wrote: > When I drafted the functional structure that is appearing on items [1], > Gerard pointed out that it is drifting into the lexical area. That made me > think that while useful to have lexical data as an independent item as we > discussed last year for Wiktionary, the current structure "q item <label> > string" doesn't seem to be compatible with that wish, or at least it would > be more difficult to maintain the same label twice. And it is not just one > label per item, there are many, and each one might have different lexical > properties. > > For more efficiency, it seems that we would need statements like "q item > <label> lexical item" to reflect that separation, but that adds further > complexity, because according to the latest Wikidata:Wiktionary proposal > [2], the "lexical item" (W) also contains senses/meanings (S). This is > recurrent, as we already have Q items as the basis for meaning... or at > least a concept that is more or less shared among languages. The only > difference between "Q items" and the proposed "S items" is that S items > represent only one of the lexeme meanings for one particular language, but > other than that they have the same nature as Q items (it should be possible > to add "subclass of" and other statements to them). > > Labels, aliases, and name properties are just normal statements where one > of them is preferred, I have been wondering why don't we treat them as > such... That way we could have some coherence, and have both "Q items" and > "S items" as the units of meaning/sense and later on move the labels > (lexemes), which now are strings, to the lexical items ("W items" in the > example on the page Wikidata:Wiktionary). > > Summing up, labels in their current form make complete sense now, but when > considered together with lexical information, it seems that it would be > convenient to treat all of them as statements that later on could link with > "W items". And as Joe pointed out, there are many more properties that are > equivalent to a label, just more specific, and that now don't show up in > the suggester, nor up above of the page where they should. > > I know that Wiktionary is still in the future and that there are many > other priorities on the way, however since the representation of the items > is being re-considered, I think it is a good moment to think about how to > move little by little in the right direction. I also would like to point > out that by keeping lexical information in wikidata, its complexity is > going to increase inevitably. If new users already struggling to understand > it now, I cannot imagine how will they cope with added elements... > > Micru > > [1] http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikidata-l/2014-June/003941.html > [2] https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary > -- Etiamsi omnes, ego non
_______________________________________________ Wikidata-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
