Linda.jansova

Welcome to Wikidata, Linda.jansova!

Wikidata is a free knowledge base that you can edit! It can be read and edited by humans and machines alike and you can go to any item page now and add to this ever-growing database!

Need some help getting started? Here are some pages you can familiarize yourself with:

• Introduction – An introduction to the project.
• Wikidata tours – Interactive tutorials to show you how Wikidata works.
• Community portal – The portal for community members.
• User options – including the 'Babel' extension, to set your language preferences.
• Contents – The main help page for editing and using the site.
• Project chat – Discussions about the project.
• Tools – A collection of user-developed tools to allow for easier completion of some tasks.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask on Project chat. If you want to try out editing, you can use the sandbox to try. Once again, welcome, and I hope you quickly feel comfortable here, and become an active editor for Wikidata.

Best regards!

--marv1N (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

TDKIV

Vážená kolegyně! Podle pár příkladů v Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P5398 jsem si všiml potenciálního problému Vámi doplňovaných identifikátorů TDKIVu (jedná se vesměs o konflikty s některými již dříve mnou přidanými odkazy na TDKIV). V některých případech (u všech?) vycházíte při hledání odpovídající položky na Wikidatech z anglického překladu hesel v TDKIVu, ovšem ty anglické překlady českych hesel často nejsou příliš exaktní: historická metrologie nemůže být metrology (Q394) (=metrology), ale historical metrology (Q1620887) (=historical metrology) atd. Nevím, jestli máte zjíštěno, že tento problém s překlady tvoří jen malé procento a toto je malá daň za systematické plnění, nebo jestli by bylo vhodné přidat nějakou vrstvu kontroly při plnění hesel TDKIV do Wikidat? --marv1N (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Dobrý den, máte pravdu, že ne všechny anglické překlady v TDKIV jsou zcela přesné, nicméně problém s překlady ve vztahu k jejich mapování na stávající položky Wikidat se bude velmi pravděpodobně týkat opravdu zanedbatelného počtu položek. Mapování je zpracováváno v rámci projektu a v následujících týdnech a měsících bude ještě ověřováno dalšími odborníky, takže případné drobné nedostatky by měly být v brzké době odstraněny. Na příklady v Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P5398 se podívám a nepřesnosti opravím. Linda.jansova (talk) 06:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Tak osm jasných případů jsem už opravila. U poštovního serveru si myslím, že by byla přesnější má varianta (E-mail server, ne Mail Transfer Agent). Postcard se v angličtině určitě používá také jako pohlednice (view card je podle popisu ve Wikidatech užší), dva výskyty položky misprint ve Wikidatech se mi zdají jako duplicita, stejně tak se mi to zdá u document repository a digital archives (podle toho, jak je to ve Wikidatech pojato). To by se asi dalo vyřešit said to be the same as. U cinematheque vs. film library a dvojího výskytu point si zatím nejsem jistá (tam je to možná spíš na zpřesnění v TDKIV ;-). Linda.jansova (talk) 07:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Díky za odpověď. Pokud o problému víte, bude docházet k čištění, tak se tím asi není třeba příliš trápit. Ještě pár poznámek k těm sporným případům:

• Pokud vím, tak pohlednice je obdobně jako německá Ansichtkarte etymologicky odvozená od pohledu, ovšem slovo se používá ve významu "konkrétní případ dopisnice/korespondenčního lístku s obrázkem", TDKIV pojem definuje "Grafický dokument" - polokarton ... po jedné straně s tiskem fotografie či obrázku...", což je jednoznačně česká "pohlednice", chceteli německá Ansichtkarte. Nevím, jak Angličan používá výrazy "view card" a "postcard", ale hlasoval bych pro to se u TDKIV držet českého článku a zatím mu odpvoídající položky (je si myslím nesmysl propojit to s anglickým postcard, protože tato položka bude mít vždy připojený český korepondenční lístek/dopisnicii, což heslu TDKIV neopdovídá).
• Dva misprinty bych dokonce myslel, že jsou v tuto chvíli kandidáti na merge (ne jen "said to be the same as").
• "document repository" a "digital archives" si jsou dle mého blízko, nicméně repozitář (nevím, jestli to můžu takto překládat, repozitářů již teď je na WD několik a jejich vztah není vyjasněn) zřejmě není synonymum pro digitální archiv (tak jak se nakonec již i v češtině buduje terminologie, tak d. archiv by měl mít striktnější mechanismy pro dlouhodobé uchovávání, což je nakonec to, co požaduje TDKIV: sbírka digitálních dokumentů shromážděná za účelem jejich dlouhodobého uchování). Opět
• film library (Q1414390) je odvozena od německého článku Filmbibliothek, kde se zcela jednoznačně jedná o knihovnu s knihami o filmu, což není to, co hledáme.

OK, tak kromě těch misprintů jsem to už upravila. U cinematheque by asi bylo užitečné přidat ekvivalent film library – v zahraničí se evidentně výraz film library používá právě pro sbírky filmů, viz i např. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/film-library. Linda.jansova (talk) 06:28, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Super! Jinak já mám takovou špatnou vlastnost, že píši zpravidla jen, když je něco špatně, takže alespoň teď a takto děkuji, že jste se do doplňování vrhla.

Jinak jsem si ještě všiml, že misprint (Q21096955) je dost specificky definovaná položka používaná jako kvantifikátor u zdrojů tvrzení na Wikidatech, možná to tedy má nějaký důvod databázový - takže to radši zatím slučovat nebudu (objevil jsem ale nové wikičlánky o tiskových chybách: printing error (Q1260827)). --marv1N (talk) 18:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

TDKIV without English labels

Hello, it seems that you have created more than 1.400 items that don't contain an English label, but you just limited to add the TDKIV identifier. This doesn't help other users to understand what the item is about, and what's its place in the context of the Wikidata's ontology. Some items turned also out to be duplicates.

Before you continue to create new items, you should complete your past work, possibly:

1. merging the items about the same concept, as I did here;
2. adding a suitable English label and synonims (that you can retrieve from the same item on aleph.nkp.cz), as I did here;
3. adding some basic relationships, as I did here, for connecting the item with the other concepts of the ontology.

Please let me know if I can help you. --Horcrux (talk) 12:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Horcrux,

Thank you for your interest in my work!

I will keep adding more details over the next few months. We are currently revising English translations in our database. For this reason it is better to wait for a while and only then add corrected translations to Wikidata. We are also in the process of adding relationships to Wikidata but as these do not exist in our database, it takes effort (and time) to create them. In 2018 we had a grant project to start up the collaboration of our national library to Wikidata and now we continue to build upon the project's results. The project (and subsequent activities) are based on our collaboration with Wikimedia Czech Republic.

Concerning your example with equivalence, it is not the same concept as the Wikidata item in question represents solely equivalence from a mathematical viewpoint. Before adding new items to Wikidata I always perform a thorough search in Wikidata database to make sure I do not add a duplicate. Sometimes it may happen, though, as some items do not contain enough data at the time of search.

Linda.jansova (talk) 13:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I have found out that while it would be very nice to create a "full" item with relationships, translations etc. right at the very beginning, it has proved rather impractical. When editing one item, I would too often find out that the other items which should be linked to the newly created item are missing and have to be added first. Linda.jansova (talk) 13:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Ahoj @Linda.jansova:, thank you for your interesting work connecting this czech LIS-realted term- and definition-database to wikidata. As @Horcrux: already mentioned it is for all other - at least for non-czech-speaking Users impossible to understand what these items are about if they are only containing the TDKIV term ID (P5398). At the moment there exists more then 1,300 items in this way Query.

I don't want to bother you, but maybe it would be a little bit better if you have waited to create so many items on Wikidata in that moment, where you have the possibility to create also some basic relationships (instance of (P31), subclass of (P279)) and some foreign-language labels. Do you have already set all english labels on that items which are containing the term anglicky (e.g. Example? Otherwise it would be easy to write a script to scrape the missing english labels from your database.

Maybe you also can explain the difference btw Lombardic capitals (Q65769817) and Lombardic capitals (Q28670094) - the czech description in your item says that lombard is a capital in a printed text, but lombard are also used in manuscripts. Maybe it is useful to create on Wikidata two Concepts for Capitals depending on the writing system. User @PKM: is very familiar with these concepts and have talked about make a clear difference on this different types of capitals. Mfchris84 (talk) 05:27, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Mfchris84:, Thank your for letting me know about the possible duplicates Lombardic capitals (Q65769817) and Lombardic capitals (Q28670094) - I have reviewed them and merged them (making the description more generic, referring to text in general instead of specifically printed text). In this case we actually do not have an English translation in our terminology database which has made it difficult to find the appropriate Wikidata item.

I actually wanted to start by creating items and - at the same time - adding the appropriate relationships. However, as many of these relationships would be those to other terms (future Wikidata items) from our database, it was very clumsy to proceed like this.

Also, as the English terms in our database are currently under review (some of them are more generic or specific than the main term), I am trying to add only those translations which are as precise as possible and will continue to do so over the next couple of months. For this reason adding items manually has been chosen as the preferred method.

Obviously, a process like this takes time but will hopefully result in Wikidata being much richer in LIS-related terms and their relationships.

BTW, this is also a kind of a pilot project which has inspired another collaboration of our national library with Wikidata - this time a much bigger project concerning authority data.

Linda.jansova (talk) 08:04, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your merging "Lombard"/"Lombardic capitals". I am thinking that "type style group" might be a good English translation for typeface (Q65770200) meaning class that contains the major groupings of letter families (Roman, Italic, sans serif). This would match Getty AAT's 3001943389 which is currently (incorrectly?) matched to typeface (Q17451). Let me know if there's anything I can help with. - PKM (talk) 19:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi @PKM:,

I have looked into this and have added a description "any kind of type used for printing" to typeface (Q65770200) and an English translation "printing type". We use this translation in our database and I have also found it in other sources, most notably in the book entitled An Introduction to the History of Printing Types (https://www.worldcat.org/title/introduction-to-the-history-of-printing-types-an-illustrated-summary-of-the-main-stages-in-the-development-of-type-design-from-1440-up-to-the-present-day-an-aid-to-type-face-identification/oclc/878086923&referer=brief_results and https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-History-Printing-Types-Identification/dp/1884718442). This way I believe we would use proper English typographical terminology.

As to typeface (Q17451), my understanding is that Getty's ID is matched correctly as "font family" can be considered the same as "typeface" (a Wikipedia entry at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeface provides more details).

Linda.jansova (talk) 08:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I can live with that. I’m pretty much done with the changes I wanted to make with typefaces and scripts for now. - PKM (talk) 00:55, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Follows or followed by for early book formats

Hi @Linda.jansova, I removed the statements of followed by (P156) and follows (P155) from some items (rotulus (Q2073537), codex (Q213924), caudex (Q66100145)), because this property should only be used in instances where one item is a clear-cut successor to another. However, rotulus and codex co-existed for some time.

I do understand that you were trying to model changes in usage. This is a rather fuzzy matter, which is something that structured data struggles with. I think we can find a better way to describe the usage practice of writing supports, and I would welcome hearing your thoughts.

Best, Jonathan Groß (talk) 07:04, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi@Jonathan Groß, no problem with that; I absolutely agree that real life seems to fuzzier than a model which tries to simplify and perhaps generalize things a bit. Linda.jansova (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Great. Are you by the way still working on Early Print in Wikidata? Jonathan Groß (talk) 11:25, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Well, I still try to get some of the relationships described in the TDKIV terminology database to Wikidata. Finding enough time to do that is a bit of a struggle lately, though. Linda.jansova (talk) 11:32, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'm sure I'll see you around then. Have a good time! Jonathan Groß (talk) 13:06, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

ruling (Q1826484)

Ahoj Linda,

are Lineatur (de) and réglure (fr) a valid translation for linkování řádek?-- U. M. Owen (talk) 11:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Dear @U. M. Owen, yes, as far as I can tell these two translation look valid :-). Linda.jansova (talk) 11:58, 3 November 2023 (UTC)