Imported from Talk:Tables for Wiktionary and Tables for Wiktionary because I believe these comments were regarding Vortaro. There is an outside chance these comments were actually regarding the first proposal on Tables for Wiktionary.
I just had a look at the tables - its simply too much for me - I feel it is too complicated compared to where our project wsi-glossary (http://sourceforge.net/projects/wsi-glossary/) should reach. But maybe the tables we are creating could be inserted there as well. As for wiktionary: some parts of the relations are included in a "word-description" so probably it would be useful to create maybe a simplified structure of this for our work here. Or at least a simplified structure for data entry and the more complicated one in the background for specialists. Please consider that most people have even difficulties to work with simple tables (sometimes I receive contributions in a completely different format and not csv). Many people who would like to contribute on a linguistic level don't have the computer literacy needed for "difficult" software. So these are the first thoughts I had when I saw this table. Ciao. : SabineCretella 06:37, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I'll side with the data-analists here: Examples are what makes database-structures understandable. For example, the knot just left of VpNro, linking three tables and 5 fields (pdf), is not immediately obvious to me.
But anyway, if the spellings are stored only once, shouldn't there be Spellings table? As it is now, from the structure given you'd assume it's stored in every word. (Script?) Also, I expect almost all those word properties to belong with the dictionary entry, regardless of the individual words it is constructed from, eg. hot-air balloon.
Distinguishing between concepts en meanings does create an effective translation/synonym system, but it might go into too much detail. However, apart from the representations of the concept, shouldn't the subtables connect to Meaning. Those also connecting to WordDescription might even be redundant on one side. (For clarity, it might be wise to distinguish between the sound of the word and the sound of the concept, even if the final base would not.) Aliter 19:03, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)
(page=spelling <<->> expression(word) <<->> meaning <<-> concept)
Imported from the main page
- The sxd file does not open properly on my browser, and I have no idea what needs to be done. The pdf chart seems well beyond the scope of Wiktionary. Eclecticology 21:45, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- sxd is a file format that can only be opened with OpenOffice.org. It is free software (FLOSS) and can be downloaded from www.openoffice.org. The PDF and the .sxd have the same content though.
- If one wants to store a dictionary in a relational database, making use of the advantages of such a database, one is always going to need a serious amount of tables.
- As Gerard said, things could be simplified though. When I find the time I'll get started on that. It would be interesting to know on beforehand though, whether there is a willingness of the WikiMedia foundation to create a new database or not. If they don't intend to do this, or to give it a chance, I don't have to put more time into it either. Polyglot 05:48, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)
A very complex and time consuming process; is it even usable, as logographic dictionaries would probably require a different standard. Ultimately, I suggest that of GerardM; entries being stored in XML; as it can still be usable with the WikiMedia software (Wiki mark-up being usable, history could still be seen & compared, and etcetera). The definition you provided could be simplified and used as the DTD of most of the languages; being editable by the owners of the corresponding Wiktionaries to suit their needs.
I'll try to create a basic structure of how this might be done. --184.108.40.206 06:45, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Blade Hirato)
I think this is the wrong approach. Think of the user interface and the outcome, worry about how to implement it later. --wikt:user:eean
- If you give REASONS why you think something is the wrong approach, we can address these. Now it is vague and unhelpfull. GerardM 16:48, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
|This template will point from the discussion pages of all the different proposals for a single Wiktionary DataBase to the one page where all discussion on the subject of a single Wiktionary Database is conducted, to create a discussion of that purpose, rather than of each proposal separately. User:Aliter|