Hoi, The database design for OmegaWiki had a distinction between the concept and all the derivatives for them. The lexemes were all connected to the concept and independent of the spelling they are connected to the concept. Obviously this is language dependent.
So bumblebee is more complex than just "instance of" noun. It is an English noun. "Hommel" is connected as a Dutch noun for the same concept and "hommels" is the Dutch plural...
Obviously. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 September 2016 at 16:35, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 13.09.2016 um 15:37 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, You assume that it is not good to have lexicological information in our
existing
items. With Wiktionary support you bring such information on board. It
would be
really awkward when for every concept there has to be an item in two
databases.
It will be two namespaces in the same project.
But we will not duplicate items. The proposed structure is not concept-centered like Omegawiki is. It will be centered about lexemes, like Wiktionary is, but with a higher level of granularity (a lexeme corresponds to one "morphological" section on a Wiktionary page).
Why is there this problem with lexicologival information and how will the current data be linked to the future "Wiktionary-data" information if
there are
to be two databases?
Because "bumblebee" <instance-of> "noun" conflicts with "bumblebee" <subclass-of> "insect". They can't both be true for the same thing, because nouns are not insects. One is true for the word, the other is true for the concept. So they need to be treated separately.
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata