Open main menu

Wikidata:Property proposal/ILI ID


Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Term

   Done: ILI ID (P5063) (Talk and documentation)
DescriptionInterlingual Index identifier
Data typeExternal identifier
Allowed valuesi[1-9]\d*
Exampledog (Q144)i46360. keyboardist (Q1075651)i90836
SourceCILI: the Collaborative Interlingual Index (Q37052366)
External linksUse in sister projects: [de][en][es][fr][it][ja][ko][nl][pl][pt][ru][sv][vi][zh][commons][species][wd].
Number of IDs in sourcemore than 100'000
Expected completenessalways incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL$1
See alsoWikidata:Property proposal/WordNet ID, Wikidata:Property proposal/Wordnet synset ID


Interlingual Index is an attempt to make a hub for multiple word net (Q2594143). The mapping is available as files on GitHub: and there is a Linked Open Data URI resolving at It links to WordNet (Q533822) 3.0 and 3.1 identifiers. It is meant to be persistent ("ILI IDs should be persistent: we never delete, only deprecate or supercede; we should not change the meaning of the concept" [1]). Thus it seems to more general than linking to individual wordnet identifiers, such as WordNet 3.0 identifiers. Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Popcorndude Nikki SynConlanger Infovarius Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) Daniel Mietchen (talk) Lore.mazza81   Notified participants of WikiProject Linguistics


  •   Support. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Comment Aren't regular WordNet identifiers linked using exact match (P2888) (or some other general property that isn't explicitly noted as being a WordNet identifier)? What's stopping these from being linked in the same way? Mahir256 (talk) 15:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Yes, some WordNet 3.0 identifiers (475 currently, via the "wn" prefix) are being linked via exact match (P2888). There is nothing stopping anyone from using exact match (P2888) to ILI ID URIs, but I would think that having a dedicated property would be better: It is easier to query from SPARQL. The reason to focus on ILI instead of English WordNet identifiers is that ILI seem less volatile (there are three WordNet URI prefixes) and multilingual. — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
  •   Support interesting, yes I agree this is better than the WordNet approach we were looking at earlier. ArthurPSmith (talk) 19:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@Fnielsen, Pigsonthewing, Mahir256, ArthurPSmith:   Done: ILI ID (P5063). − Pintoch (talk) 21:26, 18 April 2018 (UTC)