And just to point out - even though there are no plans to accommodate the
superstructures in the data model directly, it should be noted that the
current data model already is flexible to have it, i.e. if the community so
wishes they can create Lexemes which represent the "root" of a word like
"produc-" and then explicitly link these with statements from the Lexemes
for "production", "producer", etc. Or not. It could instead try to model it
with statements pertaining the etymology of the words. Or not.

The Wiktionary data model is not supposed to express a specific theory of
linguistics, just as the Wikidata data model is not supposed to express a
specific theory of ontology. It is supposed to be flexible enough to work
with whatever the community decides it wants to express, sometimes even
contradictory statements, and the ability to source them to references.

On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:05 AM Daniel Kinzler <>

> Am 16.09.2016 um 20:46 schrieb Thad Guidry:
> > Daniel,
> >
> > I wasn't trying to help solve the issues - I'll be quite now :)
> >
> > ​I was helping to expose one of your test cases :)​
> Ha, sorry for sounding harsh, and thanks for pointing me to "product"!
> It's a
> good test case indeed.
> > 'product' is a lexeme - a headword - a basic unit of meaning that has a
> 'set of
> > forms' and those have 'a set of definitions'
> In the current model, a Lexeme has forms and senses. Forms don't have
> senses
> directly, the meanings should apply to all forms. This means lexemes have
> to be
> split with higher granularity:
> * product (English noun) would be one lexeme, with "products" being the
> plural
> form, and "product's" the genitive, and "products'" the plural genitive.
> Sense
> include the ones you mentioned.
> * (to) produce (English verb) would be another lexeme, with forms like
> "produces", "produced", "producing", etc, and senses meaning "to create",
> "to
> show", "to make available", etc
> * production (English noun) would be another lexeme, with other forms and
> senses.
> * produce (English noun) would be another
> * producer (English noun) would be another
> * produced (English adjective) another
> etc...
> These lexemes can be linked using some kind of "derived from" statements.
> > ​But a thought just occured to me...
> > A. In order to model this perhaps would be to have those headwords
> stored in
> > Wikidata.  Those headwords ideally would not actually be a Q or a P ...
> but what
> > about instead ... L​  ?  Wrapping the graph structure itself ?  Pros /
> Cons ?
> That's the plan, yes: Have lexemes (L...) on wikidata, which wrap the
> structure
> of forms and senses, and has statements for the lexeme, as well as for
> each form
> and each sense.
> We don't currently plan a "super-structure" for wrapping derived/related
> lexemse
> (product, produce, production, etc). They would just be inter-linked by
> statements.
> > B.  or do we go with Daniel's suggestion of linking out to headwords and
> not
> > actually storing them in Wikidata ?  Pros / Cons ?
> The link I suggest is between items (Q...) and lexemes (L...), both on
> Wikidata.
> --
> Daniel Kinzler
> Senior Software Developer
> Wikimedia Deutschland
> Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
> _______________________________________________
> Wikidata mailing list
Wikidata mailing list

Reply via email to