Le 2013-04-05 19:44, Sebastian Hellmann a écrit :
Hi Mathieu,
Am 05.04.2013 11:56, schrieb Mathieu Stumpf:
I added the dbpedia wiktionary entry on [1]. I wasn't aware of your effort, despite being really interesting in the wiktionary future. Could you please read [1] and update it with your vision as a dbpedia contributor?
this page is interesting, but seems to be very idealistic. I am not sure, every language community agrees to use a common model. I also wonder if this is possible at all and whether there is an overlap. Do you think it makes sense to edit that page? Normally, there is a lot of talk and planning and nothing comes around in the end.
I would present that in an other way which would to say that this page try to adress the problem with long term perpectives, but with real concrete goals. Sure you can't reach the one solution that will make everybody happy, but making people talk together of their specifics issues and expectations from wikitionaries is a path which I think worth to be explored. To my mind, this should help us to have a better overview of various linguistic knowledge people are expecting to find in wiktionnaries, and how to improve the transmission of this knowledge between each chapters.
As it is said on the page, this is not a trivial problem, because it asks to gather a lot of linguistic expertise, as well as think about the UX we want to provide to end users and facilitate for third parties.
Note that the good thing about Wiktionary is, that you can add information freely without adhering to a preset structure.
Yes and no. Sure if you don't count with the wikisyntax, there are no specific structure imposed to wiktionnaries chapters. But in practice, you know that they did adopted a more or less rigid structure, because that was relevant. But now we are in a situation where each chapter have its own idiom of templates, that not only make harder to automate cross-chapter information transmission, but also can make newcommers affraid. This is a really serious issue, I know that at least for the french chapter, we are losing wannabe contributor, because of heavy use we make of template. Don't get me wrong here, I'm not blaming the french wiktionary community, to my mind it's an upstream issue.
You know that having more editors is one of our community goals, don't you? Well, to have more editor, we have to make the participating leurning curve as small as possible. And that require a good UX. And that require a well thought end-user interface/API integration. I have no doubt it will be really difficult to integrate the Visual Editor into the french wiktionary for example, because articles there heavily relies on templates, and as far as I know, the Visual Editor doesn't provide (yet?) any tool to structure information further than section/bold/italic. But in the french wiktionary, even sections are created using templates!
DBpedia is already implementing adapters to load data from WikiData. So Once WikiData is working for Wiktionary, we will have data from there and from the remaining Wikisyntax and merge them.DBpedia and WikiData have a loose cooperation for a joint task in a Google Summer of Code proposal.
Well, that's great, we need such a work to be done too. Thank you to do it.