It is no coincidence that the Wikidata Wiktionary data model and OntoLex fit well together: Wikidata was informed and followed the Lemon data model closely, and OntoLex also is rooted in Lemon.
It's good that both built on the same solid results from linguistics ;)
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 10:55 AM Ester Pantaleo esterpantaleo@gmail.com wrote:
The DBnary project "Wiktionary as Linguistic Linked Open Data" at:
http://kaiko.getalp.org/about-dbnary/ http://kaiko.getalp.org/sparql
can be used as a reference.
I am basing my IEG project to visualize etymologies from Wktionary on it:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/A_graphical_and_interactive_etymo... is based on at project/
Cheers,
Ester
On Wed, Sep 21, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Daniel Kinzler < daniel.kinzler@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Am 21.09.2016 um 19:23 schrieb Eric Scott:
A substantial amount of work in the LOD community seems to have gone
into Ontolex:
https://www.w3.org/community/ontolex/wiki/Final_Model_Specification
Is there any concern with aligning WD's model to this standard?
Thanks for pointing to this!
From a first look, the models seem to roughly align:
What we call a "Lexeme" corresponds to a "Lexical Entry" in ontolex. What we call a "Form" corresponds to a "Form" in ontolex. What we call a "Sense" corresponds to a "Lexical Sense & Reference" in ontolex, although in ontolex, a reference to a Concept is required, while in our model that reference would be optional, but a natural language gloss is required.
So the models seem to match fine on a conceptual level. Perhaps someone with more expertise in RDF modeling can provide a more detailed analysis.
-- 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
Wikidata mailing list Wikidata@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata