Hoi, There is little point to integrating Wiktionary and the current proposal if it is unclear how that information is going to be used. The proposal for all its fancy words misses the point completely and you point it out really well: it is unclear how lexemes will interact in the UI and in search.
The current labels will one on one coincide with lexemes. I think we can agree on this. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 March 2014 12:43, Daniel Kinzler daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de wrote:
Am 08.03.2014 11:22, schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
At this moment there is a start of having "badges". They are at this
stage basic
information on the article level. It demonstrates that we CAN have
information
that is beyond statements. It is arguably not sufficient, an argument
made in
bug 40810#c38.
Badges are editorial information (they say somthine about an article in the Wikimedia universe), they don't say anthing about the entity itself. IF they did, they would be (part of) statements.
When Wiktionary is to be integrated, labels are what Wiktionary is
about. This
should be obvious, The argument is that we can leave labels for now. It
requires
revisiting in the not to far off future.
This is not how Wiktionary integration is going to work. At all. Please read the proposal: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary. This has nothing to do with labels, precisely because we need labels to be simple. The proposal does not detail how lexemes interact with items in the UI and in search - that's still open, and that's exactly where the things you have been mentionen will have their place. That'S going to be a lot more powerful and flexible than trying to glue extra attributes to labels.
-- daniel
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l
-- Daniel Kinzler Senior Software Developer
Wikimedia Deutschland Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V.
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l