[Sorry for cross-posting]
Yes, I agree that the OmegaWiki community should be involved in the discussions, and I pointed GerardM to our proposals whenever and discussions, using him as a liaison. We also looked and keep looking at the OmegaWiki data model to see what we are missing.
Our latest proposal is different from OmegaWiki in two major points:
* our primary goal is to provide support for structured data in the Wiktionaries. We do not plan to be the main resource ourselves, where readers come to in order to look up something, we merely provide structured data that a Wiktionary may or may not use. This parallels the role of Wikidata has with regards to Wikipedia. This also highlights the difference between Wikidata and OmegaWiki, since OmegaWiki's goal is "to create a dictionary of all words of all languages, including lexical, terminological and ontological information."
* a smaller difference is the data model. Wikidata's latest proposal to support Wiktionary is centered around lexemes, and we do not assume that there is such a things as a language-independent defined meaning. But no matter what model we end up with, it is important to ensure that the bulk of the data could freely flow between the projects, and even though we might disagree on this issue in the modeling, it is ensured that the exchange of data is widely possible.
We tried to keep notes on the discussion we had today: < http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata%3E
My major take home message for me is that: * the proposal needs more visual elements, especially a mock-up or sketch of how it would look like and how it could be used on the Wiktionaries * there is no generally accepted place for a discussion that involves all Wiktionary projects. Still, my initial decision to have the discussion on the Wikidata wiki was not a good one, and it should and will be moved to Meta.
Having said that, the current proposal for the data model of how to support Wiktionary with Wikidata seems to have garnered a lot of support so far. So this is what I will continue building upon. Further comments are extremely welcomed. You can find it here:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
As said, it will be moved to Meta, as soon as the requested mockups and extensions are done.
Cheers, Denny
2013/8/10 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland lebo.beland@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.
Agreed.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much no, because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,
This is not actually the case. There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at least simply providing hosting. It stalled because the code needed a security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to put some time into that. The OW editors and dev were very interested in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and translations.
Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the criteria for requesting WMF adoption.
- It is well-defined on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki
- It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding the
scope of free knowledge
- It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea that
grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles.
- It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary update -- and this idea was proposed and taken seriously by the OW devs -- their community of contributors should be part of discussions about how to solve the Wiktionary problem that they were the first to dedicate themselves to.
Regards, Sam.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
To add up a couple of comments to what Denny said, from my experience with Wikisource, reaching out to international, loosely connected communities is already a big challenge on its own. I would like to invite Wiktionary contributors to take a look to this Individual Engagement Grant project that Aubrey and me are doing for Wikisource, because maybe it would make sense that a group of involved Wiktionarians started a similar initiative for Wiktionary. The original application can be found here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vis...
And the midterm report: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Elaborate_Wikisource_strategic_vis...
If anyone from the Wiktionary community wants to step forward, I would be more than happy to share experiences and provide advice.
Cheers, Micru
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 3:30 AM, Denny Vrandečić < denny.vrandecic@wikimedia.de> wrote:
[Sorry for cross-posting]
Yes, I agree that the OmegaWiki community should be involved in the discussions, and I pointed GerardM to our proposals whenever and discussions, using him as a liaison. We also looked and keep looking at the OmegaWiki data model to see what we are missing.
Our latest proposal is different from OmegaWiki in two major points:
- our primary goal is to provide support for structured data in the
Wiktionaries. We do not plan to be the main resource ourselves, where readers come to in order to look up something, we merely provide structured data that a Wiktionary may or may not use. This parallels the role of Wikidata has with regards to Wikipedia. This also highlights the difference between Wikidata and OmegaWiki, since OmegaWiki's goal is "to create a dictionary of all words of all languages, including lexical, terminological and ontological information."
- a smaller difference is the data model. Wikidata's latest proposal to
support Wiktionary is centered around lexemes, and we do not assume that there is such a things as a language-independent defined meaning. But no matter what model we end up with, it is important to ensure that the bulk of the data could freely flow between the projects, and even though we might disagree on this issue in the modeling, it is ensured that the exchange of data is widely possible.
We tried to keep notes on the discussion we had today: < http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata%3E
My major take home message for me is that:
- the proposal needs more visual elements, especially a mock-up or sketch
of how it would look like and how it could be used on the Wiktionaries
- there is no generally accepted place for a discussion that involves all
Wiktionary projects. Still, my initial decision to have the discussion on the Wikidata wiki was not a good one, and it should and will be moved to Meta.
Having said that, the current proposal for the data model of how to support Wiktionary with Wikidata seems to have garnered a lot of support so far. So this is what I will continue building upon. Further comments are extremely welcomed. You can find it here:
http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary
As said, it will be moved to Meta, as soon as the requested mockups and extensions are done.
Cheers, Denny
2013/8/10 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland lebo.beland@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.
Agreed.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com
wrote:
Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much no, because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,
This is not actually the case. There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at least simply providing hosting. It stalled because the code needed a security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to put some time into that. The OW editors and dev were very interested in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and translations.
Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the criteria for requesting WMF adoption.
- It is well-defined on Meta http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki
- It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding the
scope of free knowledge
- It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea that
grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles.
- It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki
Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary update -- and this idea was proposed and taken seriously by the OW devs -- their community of contributors should be part of discussions about how to solve the Wiktionary problem that they were the first to dedicate themselves to.
Regards, Sam.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 | http://wikimedia.de
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 27/681/51985. _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Le 2013-08-10 09:30, Denny Vrandečić a écrit :
[Sorry for cross-posting]
Yes, I agree that the OmegaWiki community should be involved in the discussions, and I pointed GerardM to our proposals whenever and discussions, using him as a liaison. We also looked and keep looking at the OmegaWiki data model to see what we are missing.
Our latest proposal is different from OmegaWiki in two major points:
- our primary goal is to provide support for structured data in the
Wiktionaries. We do not plan to be the main resource ourselves, where readers come to in order to look up something, we merely provide structured data that a Wiktionary may or may not use. This parallels the role of Wikidata has with regards to Wikipedia. This also highlights the difference between Wikidata and OmegaWiki, since OmegaWiki's goal is "to create a dictionary of all words of all languages, including lexical, terminological and ontological information."
Before defining any structure, we should define what services we aim to provide with it, what mecanisms we want to provide for afterthought extensions, and what services we don't want to provide so we can exclude their constraints from our requirement specification.
For example, one of my current project involve phoneme/grapheme associations, and it would be convenient for me to have a service which would allow me to formulate request like "what grapheme is noting the phoneme '/ʃ/' in French" or at least "what French words include the phoneme '/ʃ/'". In an other study of phoneme combinations usage, I would be interested to be able to make queries like "list all languages where the phoneme combination '/str/' is used", "list all English words with this combination".
To my mind it would be really convenient to be able to perform that within any Mediawiki project. Of course our primary concern here are Wiktionaries entries, but the previous quoted needs come from a research project I'm doing on Wikiversity. Combined with Scribunto, such a request service would allow to generate dynamic auto-updated tables of phonemes/graphemes associations and combinations in each language.
- a smaller difference is the data model. Wikidata's latest proposal
to support Wiktionary is centered around lexemes, and we do not assume that there is such a things as a language-independent defined meaning. But no matter what model we end up with, it is important to ensure that the bulk of the data could freely flow between the projects, and even though we might disagree on this issue in the modeling, it is ensured that the exchange of data is widely possible.
We should define what we mean with language in the first place. After all sign languages are languages by their own, while British sign language is different from French sign language. Do we want to provide a way to get definitions for this kind of languagelexical entries? While it would not be easy, with some image processing you may imagine a solution that return gestual lexemes matching a user geasture entry through a webcam.
We tried to keep notes on the discussion we had today: <http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata [4]>
I added the reference of this work as well as a reference to this thread on [[m:Wiktionary Future]].
My major take home message for me is that:
- the proposal needs more visual elements, especially a mock-up or
sketch of how it would look like and how it could be used on the Wiktionaries
- there is no generally accepted place for a discussion that involves
all Wiktionary projects. Still, my initial decision to have the discussion on the Wikidata wiki was not a good one, and it should and will be moved to Meta.
Having said that, the current proposal for the data model of how to support Wiktionary with Wikidata seems to have garnered a lot of support so far. So this is what I will continue building upon. Further comments are extremely welcomed. You can find it here:
<http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary [5]>
As said, it will be moved to Meta, as soon as the requested mockups and extensions are done.
I will happily help you to do it.
Cheers, Denny
2013/8/10 Samuel Klein meta.sj@gmail.com
Hello,
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 6:13 PM, JP Béland lebo.beland@gmail.com
wrote:
I agree. We also need to include the Omegawiki community.
Agreed.
On Fri, Aug 9, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:
Why? The question of moving them into the WMF fold was pretty much
no,
because the project has an overlapping purpose with Wiktionary,
This is not actually the case. There was overwhelming community support for adopting Omegawiki - at least simply providing hosting. It stalled because the code needed a security and style review, and Kip (the lead developer) was going to put some time into that. The OW editors and dev were very interested in finding a way forward that involved Wikidata and led to a combined project with a single repository of terms, meanings, definitions and translations.
Recap: The page describing the OmegaWiki project satisfies all of the criteria for requesting WMF adoption.
- It is well-defined on Meta
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki [1]
- It describes an interesting idea clearly aligned with expanding
the scope of free knowledge
- It is not a 'competing' project to Wiktionaries; it is an idea
that grew out of the Wiktionary community, has been developed for years alongside it, and shares many active contributors and linguiaphiles.
- It started an RfC which garnered 85% support for adoption.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki [2]
Even if the current OW code is not used at all for a future Wiktionary update -- and this idea was proposed and taken seriously by the OW devs -- their community of contributors should be part of discussions about how to solve the Wiktionary problem that they were the first to dedicate themselves to.
Regards, Sam.
Wikimedia-l mailing list Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l [3], mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
-- Project director Wikidata Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Obentrautstr. 72 | 10963 Berlin Tel. +49-30-219 158 26-0 [6] | http://wikimedia.de [7]
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 27/681/51985 [8].
Links:
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Omegawiki [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Adopt_OmegaWiki [3] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l [4] http://epl.wikimedia.org/p/WiktionaryAndWikidata [5] http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Wiktionary [6] tel:%2B49-30-219%20158%2026-0 [7] http://wikimedia.de [8] tel:27%2F681%2F51985
Wikidata-l mailing list Wikidata-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikidata-l