This wiktionary mailing list was created to discuss some possible changes,
implementations, and improvements to the current Wiktionary. The idea is to
transform the current freeform wiki-dictionary into a more formal structured
format. That way things can be more easily searched, linked, and managed.
The debate is how simple or complex should the system be. If it is too complex
no one will add to it, if it is too simple, then the conversion from wiki-system
to the new format was in vain. We also don't want to reinvent the wheel, there
are several other dictionary format available. One for example is the DICT
protocol[1]. The Dictionary Server Protocol (DICT) is a TCP transaction based
query/response protocol that allows a client to access dictionary definitions
from a set of natural language dictionary databases. RFC 2229 has more
information.[2] This might be an intersting format to follow, or maybe not?
The system should be fairly simple and expanded later. The major points to be
broken down are: Words (terms, various prononciations, language), Definitions
(part of speach, definition, example), synonyms, antonyms, etymologies,
translations? Each would be it's own table keyed by the word. This is a very
simple system, and it is a good point to start a discussion.
The other table i would suggest is some sort of 'See Also'. This would be used
for things like mutiple spellings, or plurals. So if i enter 'colour' and color
is already in the dictionary, i can add a definition to 'colour' as "The
british
spelling of color"... SEE ALSO: color. The same would work for plurals (goose,
geese). This doesn't force any weird root word constrains, and allows for some
miskates by people NOT check for alternate spellings first, but is easily
fixable with a 'see also' link.
that's my two cents, any suggestions?
-brian
[1] -
http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict
[2] -
http://www.dict.org/rfc2229.txt
--
brian suda
http://suda.co.uk