Ray Saintonge wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Anthere, Jimbo, At this moment, we are in the position of getting the cooperation of all kinds of outside people with regard to Wiktionary. This is documented to a large extend on META and on the wiktionary-l mailinglist. Because of the quality of the data that we are allowed to enter and because of the quality of the persons that are involved, it would really help if we are able to import but also export wiktionary data using XML structures.
The benefits are: *We will open up to other open dictionary content for inclusion in wiktionary. *We will open up our content to other intrested parties. *The wiktionary content will not be only in our own "proprietary" format. *We will be able to import data from one wiktionary in the next. This will not only enhance the quality of the wiktionaries; it will also enhance the reputation of the wiktionaries. *We will prevent the duplication of effort. Much effort now goes in doing the same job over and over again. An example; the word "Nederlands" in nl:wiktionary has 68 exact translations; these words exist as well. Technically these words can be copied to ALL other wiktionaries. This is not possible at the moment. The human effort is huge and wasted as it can be automated.
When a consensus arrives on how to do this, it will also mean that some programming will be required. Without your backing, I expect that nothing is going to happen. When we have arrived at a road map, it will mean that a lot of work will be needed to make the wiktionary data conformant for inclusion in the new scheme and have the technique to get this done. We cannot reasonably ask this of the wiktionary community and the wikitech community when this road map is not co-owned by the wikimedia board.
Questions: *Acknowledge that you will consider this as being strategic to the development of Wiktionary. *Give a timeframe in which we will know that we can plan with a reasonable chance of getting things implemented. (basically when will we have an answer to the first question)
The implications of Gerald's proposal are very unclear, and he has yet to outline them in detail. His focus appears to be on the translation aspects of Wiktionary, but he needs to be reminded that translations are only the secondary objective of the Wiktionaries. The primary objective is to develop a detailed understanding of a language for speakers of that language. Etymology, pronunciation and notes to distinguish different usages all serve that purpose. Gerard does not make the programming that he wants very clear. Where is at least an example of what he would want a page to look like? We are already free to exchange material with other sites with compatible licensing. The software that we use is not proprietary is it is available for all to use without the payment of any licensing fees. The comments about enhancing the quality and reputation of the wiktionaries are subjective and speculative. There is no evidence to support this. Before this can be seen as a strategic plan a lot more detail should be given.
Ec
Wiktionary-l mailing list Wiktionary-l@Wikipedia.org http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiktionary-l
Ec does indeed not see what I am talking about. I am talking about the ability of wiktionary to import and export data. In META there are now several pages on that subject. It is important to understand that Wiktionary has its data in a proprietary format and that it is not possible to import and export the wiktionary data in a collaborative way. The methodology of exporting would be best served by using XML. There are at least two relevant existing XML definitions and we will propably settle on a third definition; one more suited to dictionaries.
As to not being clear, in META there are two first stabs at database design, one by Polyglot and one by me. Both are not complete and they are there to help start the needed discussion. Etymology, pronounciation, pictures and sound are part of what is proposed.
Proprietary also means that a format is used that does not lend itself to sharing. As such the wiktionary content is closed. The fact that data can not be re-used in sister-wiktionaries is all the proof needed that a lot of redundant work is done. To make the wiktionaries relevant we need content in our wiktionaries. Nl.wiktionary has 3600 articles and the 45000 pages in en:wiktionary cannot be added to it. The en: content is relevant content to the nl:wiktionary and any other wiktionary. There are 5200 words in the GEMET glossary with translations and we do not have a standard method to include these in our wiktionaries. We do not have a method to let the GEMET people know what changes are made to their data. Those are the strategic requirements I am talking about. The need to share the wiktionary content is strategic; it makes our data open and it allows for the sharing of work that is done in the wiktionaries. By sharing, all the work done becomes more relevant.
How a finished page will eventually look, is to early to tell, it may look like the way [[wikt:nl:Engels]] and [[wikt:nl:English]] looks. The edit screens will however be completely different.
As to a purpose of a dictionary; it should help people understand a language; it is not only for the speakers of a language. The en:wiktionary helps people who can use the English language to understand the English language and other languages as well.
Thanks, GerardM