<!DOCTYPE html>
<html><head>
<meta charset="UTF-8">
</head><body><p>It is interesting to be on a list where one can hear about software issues, and then computational linguistic problems. I'm not an expert in either area.</p><p>I do have 17 years of varied Wikimedia experience (and I use my real name there).</p><blockquote type="cite">On 04 July 2020 at 12:25 Louis Lecailliez <louis.lecailliez@outlook.fr> wrote: </blockquote><p><snip></p><blockquote type="cite"> <br><div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000;"> Nothing precise is said about linguistic resources in the AW paper except for "These function finally can call the lexicographic knowlegde stored in Wikidata.", which is not very convincing: first because Wiktionary projects themselves severely lacks content and structure for those who has some content at all, secondly since specialized NLP ressources are missing there too (note: I'm not familiar with Wikidata so I could be wrong, however I never saw it cited for the kind of NLP resources I'm talking about). </div></blockquote><p>I can comment about this. Besides Wiktionary, there is the "lexeme" namespace of Wikidata. It is a relatively new part of Wikidata, dealing with verbal forms.</p><div style="font-family: Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: #000000;"><div><br></div><div>>To finish on a positive note, I would like to highlight the points I really like in the paper. First, its collaborative and open nature, like all Wikimedia projects, gives him a much higher chance of success than its predecessors. </div><div><br></div><div>It is worth saying, for context, that there is a certain style or philosophy coming from the wiki side: more precisely, from the wikis before Wikipedia. There is the slogan "what is the simplest thing that would actually work?" You might argue, plausibly, that Wikipedia at nearly 20 years old, shows that there is a bit more to engineering than that.</div><div><br></div><div>On the other hand, looking at Wikidata at seven years old, there is some point to the comment. It has a rather simple approach to linked structured data, compared to the Semantic Web environment. (Really, just write a very large piece of JSON and try to cope with it!) But the number of binary relations used (8K, if you count the "external links" handling) is now quite large, and has grown organically. The data modelling is in a sense primitive, sometimes non-existent. But the range of content handled really is encyclopedic. And in an area like scientific bibliography, at a scale of tens of millions of entities, the advantages of not much ontological fussiness begin to be seen.</div><div><br></div><div>Wikidata started as an index of all Wikipedia articles, and is now five times the size needed for that: a very enriched "index".</div><div><br></div><div>I suppose the NLP required to code up, for example, 50K chemistry articles about molecules, might be a problem that could be solved, leaving aside the general problems for the moment.</div><div><br></div><div>In any case, there is a certain approach, neither academic nor commercial, that comes with Wikimedia and its communities, and it will be interesting to see how the issues are addressed.</div><div><br></div><div>Charles Matthews (in Cambridge UK)</div></div></body></html>