Situxx

I saw the propsal toindicate what charatcters appear in aparticular lexeme, andwhile I agree with theobjections to thsroposal stated byothers, Ifound your comments interesting and want toaskyou what particular areas in the lexeme database and potentialapplications you are working on. I'm myself working on defining items for thesenses of adpositions,which isan area I think deserves moreattention. Maybe we can findsomethingof interest to both of us to cooperateon. My ultimate goalwould be touse Wikidata when interpreing andpproof-reading acenturies-old scanned newspaperssuchas those archived by the Swedish RoyalLibrary. I'malso interested in non-Latin scripts and alphabets--̃"̴

Hi,

Would it be a good idea or not to add statements for homographs on Sumerian and Akkadian Lexemes? For instance : ama/𒂼 (L1)homograph lexeme (P5402)dagal/𒂼 (L732940) (and vice-versa of course).

What do you think? If it's correct, I can do them semi-automatically.

Cheers,

Currently, I think that is the right way to do it, because they are written the same way in cuneiform, but I want to be sure here and would like to ask my colleagues (Assyriologists) about their opinion first.

I will get back to you.

Yes, to be explicit: it would be based on the cuneiforms, the latin transcription wouldn't make sense (but maybe even for cuneiforms it doesn't make sense either). Here is a quick query of the lexeme concerned: https://w.wiki/6fpL

Good, the more dvice, the better. And no hurry, just let me know.

From our side this seems good to go.

Should be no problem to mark these as homograph lexemes.

I was a bit busy but it's done now. If you haveany comment or see errors, please tell me and I'll correct it.

Thanks, as far as I can see it looks good. If I get any different feedback, I will let you know

Hello, an item that you have edited (and you are the only non-bot editor) is considered empty and will be deleted in 72 hours if it doesn't improve. Your automated cleaner.

Hi, not sure you know Ordia (Q63379419)   , so letting you know about it just in case. For instance, toolforge:ordia/language/Q36790 provides an overview of Sumerian lexemes. --Daniel Mietchen (talk) 17:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the hint. Yes, I use Ordia all the time for checking my progress in adding Sumerian and Akkadian Lexemes.

I am quite satisfied with it, but if it could show me the time periods of lexemes, it would be even better.

That sounds doable. Here is a draft query that could be added to the top panel in lexemes like https://ordia.toolforge.org/L704983:

The following query uses these:

• Properties: time period (P2348)   

  # Data for a specific lexeme
  SELECT DISTINCT
    ?description 
    (?valueLabel AS ?value_) 
  WHERE {
    VALUES ?lexeme { wd:L704983 }
    {
      BIND(33 AS ?order)
      BIND("Time period" AS ?description)
      ?lexeme p:P2348 ?value_statement .
      ?value_statement ps:P2348 ?value .
      ?value rdfs:label ?valueLabel .
      FILTER (LANG(?valueLabel) = 'en')
    }
  }
  ORDER BY ?order
  

Run it!

This raises several questions. For instance,

• would it be preferable to have the periods all in one row, perhaps separated by commas or some other characters, or should we use multiple rows?
• should the individual periods be linked anywhere? The best option I see here would be to have a dedicated /period profile type, but we do not have that yet, though we could perhaps get it started, e.g. with a query for lexemes from that period.

I have thus opened a ticket for this, and your comments there would be most welcome.

Thanks for forwarding this to Github. I have created a comment and would be looking forward to see this implemented

Hi,

I see that you created both lubusztum/𒇻𒁍𒍑𒌈 (L712194) and lubusztum/𒇻𒁍𒍑𒌈 (L707618). The later had a little mistake that I just fixed but now I see that it seems to be duplicate, shouldn't it be merge?

Thank you for noticing and yes you are right, they could be merged. There are (hopefully) very few duplicates and I usually keep track of them until all epsd entries are complete. If you like you can merge them, alternatively I would overwrite the one with the newer number with another lexeme that I am currently adding.

It's better to merge in such case (and it's very easy and already  Done ).

Hallo, ich habe deine Änderung an Property:P296 rückgängig gemacht, in der du den OSM-Key "railway:ref" hinzugefügt hast. Dieser wird nämlich auch benutzt, um die Bezeichnungen von Bahnübergängen zu dokumentieren.