Talk:Wikidata/Archive 1

XML
For many database projects, you do want to define XML definitions to the data as well. This definition could then allow both data import and data export. This would really open up the data content.

For Wiktionary there are many people currently outside Wiktionary that will really welcome a better structured dataset. There are many resources on the web that we could integrate with if we have a mechanism. A database (stucturing the data) and mechanisms like XML are the ticket. :) GerardM 12:41, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Wow - this is a really great idea! --Daniel Mayer 17:36, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I concur with GerardM. Wiktionary is a mess in large part because the necessarily and rightly loose structure of Wikipedia is incompatible with the way a dictionary works. With something like Wikidata, we could begin to do real lexicography. I have a half baked structure to use, one flexible enough for minimalist entries and rich enough to do things no print dicitonary does. Please go forward with this. I can't write PHP and I don't know databases very well so I can't contribute much on the technical side, but I can contribute applications if the code is in place.

Diderot 13:52, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you have a Wiktionary structure written down somewhere already? That would help in mapping out the requirements for Wikidata.--Eloquence


 * Sort of. I'm part of a team writing a commercial terminology application for a translation firm.  What we've done is to adapt a structure that supports a much richer set of lexicographic needs while maintaining a lot more flexibility.  Alas, that particular schema is not GFDL.  However, I have an alternative - but similar - approach which has few IP encumbrances and some very different priorities.  Ever since we started on this project, I keep having these feelings of this could be implimented on Wiktionary.  I'll see what I can do for you in the next couple days.  Failing that, I'm leaving on vacation on Sunday and will write something on the plane and post it from Canada.


 * In the mean time, and as an example of a quite extensive feature set for lexicography, take a look at TBX. This was our starting point.  TBX is freely useable - it has no IP issues.


 * Diderot 18:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cooperatation vs. Integration
Seems very intersting, useful and complicated. I doubt a You-Can-Manage-Every-Data-With-MediaWiki-Software is the right choice for all. There are also free databases we can colaborate with. For instance I'd something linke Wikibibliography or Wikicatalouge where I can correct bibliographical data of libraries, but I do not want to copy all the data of millions of books into MediaWiki. See Linking to databases for a simple strategie that could lead to more cooperation with already existing databases. (more detailed in German here. Better cooperate with an already existing database than trying to reinvent the wheel once more. -- Nichtich 09:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * The thing with WikiData is that it allows for creating a database that integrates within the Mediawiki software. It will have a UI that will not require to change the skins everytime.


 * Point is this is technical functionality. Not what content it will be that is used. Your point is correct tough, wikimedia will not have a database for everything, and I expect that it will not be for everyone to create a new mediawiki dataproject. I expect that for each new project we will have prior discussions. GerardM 10:42, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * For integration I prefer not creating a database (there already are databases) but a simple protocol how to integrate Databases into MediaWiki. The Databases can be a Wiki itself but in many cases there are experts creating a databases that cannot be created by everyone. They have to make their data free so we can integrate the data, not the entire database. -- Nichtich 13:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to say; I do not understand. There are "experts" in our crowd. One of the problems with many databases is that they are fragmented or hard to reach or in a proprietary format. With a Wikidata, we will be able to host databases. I do expect that we will not host everything, but first define a need. When we cannot add value by hosting the data, I do not think we should. There is also a difference between defining the database and filling the database with content. The definitions will be done by the "experts" but filling the content takes another kind of expertise. Not all the content/databases will be interesting to everyone.


 * Really I do not really see what your point is. GerardM 17:27, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Semantic Web
Sounds like connecting Wikimedia to the Semantic Web (I hope so). The idea of Semantic Web does only function if everybody gives his information for free, anyway. -- Nichtich 09:49, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * I sure hope so. It would be very interesting for the Semantic Web community to leverage the community of Wikipedia to create ... wow, I'm on a loss of words on what we would create... --denny 11:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Software changes
Brion wrote: ''Please note that the statement previous [that software changes are required] is completely false. This would work similarly to templates and plugins such as TeX math bits already; it's supplementary to the main text editing work.''


 * That depends on what exactly you are trying to accomplish. If you are talking about something like Magnus' Special:Data, with its own namespace, you are correct. However, I prefer a view where everything, including regular article pages, are wikidata and can be easily complemented with new fields, relations, etc. I also believe that wikidata fields must be easily indexable for performance reasons.--Eloquence


 * Everything is Wikidata... is that actually accomplishable with MediaWiki or would we need a new implementation? --denny 11:53, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)