Hoi,<div>The KEY part of OmegaWiki is not so much that it is intended to replace Wiktionary, it is that it has language and concepts at its heart. This is in my opinion the only way to look at things .. consider: When you have a word that needs disambiguation, it follows that the Wikipedia article about that disambiguation is not a concept in its own right. When there is a red link on such a disambiguation page, there is no article on that concept yet.</div>

<div><br></div><div>OmegaWiki is about words and concepts (I intentionally do not use the OmegaWiki terminology here). Because of this it is possible to have a one to many relation. Wikipedia articles are an attribute to the words in different languages associated with a concept.The benefits are great. One of them is that we can and do have translations without a Wikipedia article but with a definition. This means that we can provide basic information on a subject in a language AND people can choose to read a Wikipedia article in a language they know.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Given that it is about concepts, we can and do link Commons to the concept itself and not to Wikipedia. Consider, a rose is a roos in Dutch but it is as beautiful.</div><div><br></div><div>And when you ask about datastructures like info boxes.. We do support those too. They are in essence attributes available because a concept is associated with a &quot;category&quot; for instance Germany is a country. As a consequence it can be associated with a capitol, countries and seas bordering them.</div>

<div><br></div><div>Denny I hope Wikidata is similar because without a concept based structure it is indeed Wikipedia based and limited in its capabilities.</div><div>Thanks,</div><div>     Gerard</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">

On 9 May 2012 15:30, Denny Vrandečić <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de" target="_blank">denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2012/5/9 Lydia Pintscher <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de" target="_blank">lydia.pintscher@wikimedia.de</a>&gt;</span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">



<div>On Wed, May 9, 2012 at 10:52 AM, Chris Tophe &lt;<a href="mailto:kipmaster@gmail.com" target="_blank">kipmaster@gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:&gt; Concerning collaboration between the two projects,</div><div class="im"><div>


&gt; I am not sure why the new-Wikidata is starting from scratch, and not from<br>
&gt; the<br>
&gt; old-Wikidata, but there are probably good reasons for that.<br>
&gt; Would anybody know if, in the future, it would be possible to make OmegaWiki<br>
&gt; use the new Wikidata instead of the old one? Or should they stay separate<br>
&gt; projects?<br>
<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>(I am no expert on OmegaWiki, so please excuse me and correct me if I make a mistake)</div><div><br></div><div>The design and plan for Wikidata/Wikibase (further Wikidata) has a very different focus than OmegaWiki/Wikidata (further OmegaWiki).  </div>



<div>* Our first aim for Wikidata is to support the Wikipedias (and then also other projects). Thus Wikidata talks about items and their properties, the items being the topics of the respective Wikipedia articles.</div><div>



* OmegaWiki is geared towards replacing the Wiktionaries. Thus OmegaWiki talks about words and their translations, the meaning of the words being given by their defined meaning.</div><div><br></div><div>Although both involves structured data, the kind of structure is very different. The workflows are very different. I was checking OmegaWiki again and again while writing the proposal for Wikidata, getting inspired in how things are done there, thinking about the differences in the workflow, etc., but in the end, although I find OmegaWiki a fascinating project (and did so since 2005, when I heard of it for the first time from Gerard) I did not see sufficient overlap in order to investigate the code further.</div>


<div><br></div><div>If I am mistaken, I would be very happy to actually see the features that you think we can steal from OmegaWiki or the other way around. I guess a chat would make sense at some point?</div><div><br></div>


<div>Cheers,</div><div>Denny</div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br>
</div><div><br></div><div> </div></font></span></div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">-- <br>Project director Wikidata<div>Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 2 | 10963 Berlin</div><div>Tel. <a href="tel:%2B49-30-219%20158%2026-0" value="+4930219158260" target="_blank">+49-30-219 158 26-0</a> | <a href="http://wikimedia.de" target="_blank">http://wikimedia.de</a></div>



<div><div><br></div><div>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 <a href="tel:27%2F681%2F51985" value="+12768151985" target="_blank">27/681/51985</a>.</div>



</div><br>
</font></span><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Wikidata-l mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org">Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l" target="_blank">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>