Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

Property proposal:	Generic	Authority control	Person	Organization
	Creative work	Place	Sports	Sister projects
	Transportation	Natural science	Lexeme	Wikimedia Commons

LexemeEdit

MediumEdit

Under discussion

Description	type of medium of an utterance (for references please use "type of reference")
Data type	Item
Domain	lexeme
Allowed values	written,oral
Example 1	MISSING
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING
Planned use	as qualifier on usage examples
See also	type of reference

MotivationEdit

Needed to indicate whether an example was originally written or spoken before being recorded as text. See https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Property_talk:P3865#Extend_domain_to_qualifiers_on_usage_examples (Add your motivation for this property here.) So9q (talk) 07:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

note We currently have an open proposal for "medium" (lowercase of the label "Medium" proposed here) at Wikidata:Property proposal/medium with some comments about the proposed label, probably also relevant here. --- Jura 08:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I guess I'd like to see some examples where this is useful. It seems like we should already have a qualifier that would work for this purpose? ArthurPSmith (talk) 15:57, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Kielitoimiston sanakirja IDEdit

Under discussion

Description	identifier for an entry in Kielitoimiston sanakirja
Data type	External identifier
Domain	Finnish lexemes
Example 1	sarja (L29370) → sarja
Example 2	talo (L29606) → talo
Example 3	vyö (L29685) → vyö
Planned use	linking existing Wikidata lexemes
Number of IDs in source	over 100,000
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://www.kielitoimistonsanakirja.fi/#/$1
Applicable "stated in"-value	Kielitoimiston sanakirja (Q54855316)

MotivationEdit

Kielitoimiston sanakirja (Q54855316) is the online version of the official Finnish dictionary and it's commonly linked to in Wiktionary (Q151). Similarly other dictionaries, this an external identifier for a headword which multiple lexemes can share. Kriomet (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Etymology

Grammar

CantoDict identifiersEdit

CantoDict word IDEdit

Under discussion

Description	identifier for a word in CantoDict
Data type	External identifier
Domain	lexeme
Allowed values	[1-9][0-9]*
Example 1	但係/但系 (L315711) → 645
Example 2	已經/已经 (L315712) → 865
Example 3	我哋 (L400825) → 287
Example 4	你哋 (L400826) → 288
Example 5	佢哋 (L400827) → 289
Number of IDs in source	60702
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/dictionary/words/$1/
Single-value constraint	yes

CantoDict character IDEdit

Under discussion

Description	identifier for a single character word in CantoDict
Data type	External identifier
Domain	lexeme
Allowed values	[1-9][0-9]*
Example 1	隻 (L31492) → 406
Example 2	水 (L230480) → 28
Example 3	佢 (L400376) → 589
Example 4	唔 (L400814) → 468
Example 5	我 (L400823) → 1
Number of IDs in source	5368
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	http://www.cantonese.sheik.co.uk/dictionary/characters/$1/
Single-value constraint	yes

MotivationEdit

CantoDict is one of the few freely accessible English-Cantonese dictionaries and the only one I'm aware of which has example sentences. - Nikki (talk) 14:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

CantoDict entries are about words (not lexemes), but Wikidata splits terms with different etymology as different lexemes. So Weak oppose for CantoDict word ID; Support for CantoDict character ID but they should not be used on lexemes but instead on items such as 水 (Q54366215).--GZWDer (talk) 15:05, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, I've changed it to not have a distinct values constraint. We can instead add a complex constraint expecting lexemes with the same ID to have matching lemmas. I don't think we can expect every external resource for lexemes to assign different IDs for different origins of the same spelling, especially languages with limited resources. We could force people to use described at URL (P973) instead but what would be the benefit of that? - Nikki (talk) 17:17, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Support For both. OED Online ID (P5275) has the same issue but is treated as an external ID. You can list exceptions to constraints if necessary; would there really be so many duplicate cases for Chinese characters? ArthurPSmith (talk) 18:16, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

FormEdit

notable misspellingsEdit

abandoned

Description	misspelling that appear in an authorative list of misspellings (use only on forms)
Represents	misspelled word
Data type	String
Domain	form
Example 1	L3280-F1 → "fuscia" (incorrect for fuchsia (L3280))
Example 2	L3280-F1 → "fuschia" (incorrect for fuchsia (L3280))
Example 3	L36116-F1 → "abbonnemang" (incorrect for abonnemang (L36116))
Example 4	L36116-F1 → "abbonemang" (incorrect for abonnemang (L36116))
See also	Wikidata:Property proposal/correct form

MotivationEdit

This makes it possible to easily create e.g. a spell checker that recommends a correction.--So9q (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

We should define "notable misspelling". Here is my suggestion: the misspelling has to appear in one of the following sources:

an authoritative source such as e.g. Retskrivningsordbogen (Q3398246)
articles like [1] from an authoritative source in this case: Oxford University Press EL. The official global blog for Oxford University Press English Language Teaching.

~~#appears in one of wikipedias list of misspellings, e.g. [2]~~

~~appears in WD with p31 misspelling (Q1984758) e.g. Rzehakinacea (Q33188867)~~

~~appears in a corpus approved explicitly by this community with an occurrence over a certain threshold. (yet to be created, decided)~~--So9q (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Support I support this proposal in this form (more in the linked discussion) with the condition we have applicable definition of common misspelling. --Lexicolover (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

See discussion here: Wikidata_talk:Lexicographical_data#Common_misspellings_data--So9q (talk) 19:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Lexicolover stated that they suggest only using misspellings from an authorative source.--So9q (talk) 18:49, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral we need something to solve this problem but I'm not sure if a simple property is the simpliest solution here. A broader system for all sort of variants would be more difficult but better in the long run as correct/incorrect spelling is often not a binary situation (see "colour"/color" in English, correctness is contextual here). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: I agree that there can be situations where its more about style/culture than a clear misspelling. In that case I guess we would avoid marking it as a misspelling. Have you thought out a better way to handle the complexities of misspellings than I have proposed?--So9q (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Neutral: what is your definition of "common"? It sounds a bit arbitrary... Nomen ad hoc (talk) 07:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC).

@Nomen ad hoc: that point can easily be objectively defined by the frequency. If a misspelling is over a threshold, let's say 5%, then it's "common". We can use tool like Google Books Ngram Viewer to see the frequency. We can also rely on sources, dictionaries (especially the descriptivist one) often give the common misspelling. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 08:55, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nomen ad hoc: see proposed definition above.--So9q (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Nomen ad hoc: How would you define a common/notable misspelling?--So9q (talk) 18:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Support — Finn Årup Nielsen (fnielsen) (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Fnielsen: WDYT about the definition of misspelling above?--So9q (talk) 19:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Comment I preferred ~~the initial version of this proposal [3] or~~ the earlier proposal (correct form) using form datatype. --- Jura 15:49, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
- Actually, the direction of the earlier proposal seems preferable (correct form). If the form is only known as a misspelling, "grammatical feature" could include that too. If it's also something else, the "grammatical feature" would just include that "something else". --- Jura 13:28, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per above. --- Jura 13:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Jura. - Premeditated (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
Comment I like the proposal in general. A thought, would it be good to specify the sense with a qualifier? I am sure there are examples when only specific senses of a lexeme gets misspelled (but I struggle to come up with an example for now). Ainali (talk) 08:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
How about "notable misspelling" with description "misspelling that in an authorative list of misspellings"? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 22:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

I changed according to the suggestion from ChristianKl. New voting started. Please vote again below. @ChristianKl, vigneron, fnielsen, jura1, Premeditated, ainali:@Nomen ad hoc:--So9q (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Always the same: what's your definition of "authoritative"? Nomen ad hoc (talk) 09:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC).

@ChristianKl: got any input on this? I would say "an individual or organization working professionally with dictionaries or language teaching in the language in question". WDYT?—83.250.212.226 09:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

My input would be that it makes sense to define the term further. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 13:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I still prefer the inverse approach. BTW for users to see what you mean with "notable misspellings" from "authorative list": can you add corresponding references to the samples? Would autocorrects from OO qualify? --- Jura 10:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Comment I previously supported this proposal, but I am now uncertain where I stand. It seems to me that language is not so fixed as a structured knowledge graph can represented. I think there is a gradualness to formness. While some forms are definitely forms, there are a some things that are not written words that most would say are not forms but just plain misspelt, — and then there is those in between. In Danish, there are some forms that have official alternative forms which we can interlink with alternative form (P8530) (see, e.g., https://ordia.toolforge.org/property/P8530). I have recently added pizzeria (L348857) and there accidentally added it as pizzaria. The issue is what "pizzaria". The form is not mentioned as in the official Danish spelling, but listed in another important Danish dictionary https://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=pizzaria The official form is pizzeria, while "pizzaria" is an "unofficial, but common form". – The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fnielsen (talk • contribs) at 17:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC).
Comment @So9q: Isn't this property completely redundant? If a form is instance of (P31) misspelling (Q1984758), then its correct form is any other form of the lexeme with the same set of grammatical features that is not itself a misspelling. If notability is defined by authoritative source, it is already covered by references on instance of (P31) misspelling (Q1984758) statement. If notability is defined by frequency, it can be inferred from suitable corpus (or perhaps someday from more general frequency statements on forms). — Robert Važan (talk) 17:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Robert Važan:Thanks for the comment. I agree on with your points. Furthermore I thought about what a misspelling really is. In my view it is intrinsically linked to 2 properties:

cultural setting (what is a misspelling in one region might be accepted in another)
time. Over time misspelled words can become appropriated and accepted.

These two properties increase the complexity of misspellings a lot and if we add instance of (P31) misspelling (Q1984758) on forms I think we should also add point in time (P585) (ideally we would add start time and end time, but that is probably practically impossible to determine and find references for) and indigenous to (P2341) as qualifiers. I'm guessing we will have a hard time finding good references for misspellings. People seems more interested in correctly spelled words. An inverse approach of regarding all forms without a reference to an authoritative source as a misspelling might be more fruitful. I marked the proposal as abandoned.--So9q (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

form of property constraintEdit

Under discussion

Description	qualifier to define a form constraint in combination with "property constraint" (P2302)
Data type	Form
Example 1	generational suffix (P8017): property constraint (P2302) → one-of constraint (Q21510859) → THIS property → Junior (L252247) (#F2)
Example 2	generational suffix (P8017): property constraint (P2302) → one-of constraint (Q21510859) → THIS property → Senior (L252248) (#F2)
Example 3	MISSING
Planned use	property constraint (P2302) for forms properties
See also	item of property constraint (P2305)

MotivationEdit

I have not worked much with Lexeme related property but I think this could be useful. Should work somewhat similar to item of property constraint (P2305) Premeditated (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

Comment It seems more like a "one-of-constraint". Not sure if that works for generational suffix (P8017) as it can have plenty of values. --- Jura 10:43, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

That is true. Could be added with reason for deprecation (P2241) → constraint provides suggestions for manual input (Q99460987). The property can also be used as qualifier for none-of constraint (Q52558054). There are not many properties that has data type form, yet. - Premeditated (talk) 13:06, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Lexemes are associated with languages; it seems to me you want an item value here that is language-independent? Which the existing one-of-constraint should handle? ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Ah, but I see that the property (ies?) in question is (are) form-valued. And I see the analogy with the item-valued one. Ok,

Support I guess. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Notified participants of WikiProject property constraints

I removed the "ready" flag. Proposing new property constraint properties should happen in discussion with the Wikiproject for property constraints given that it needs additional programming work.

@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Are there any issues with adding this property into the constraint system? ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 16:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

@ChristianKl: Shouldn’t be too hard to implement as far as I can tell, but it might take a while due to other things being prioritized above it. --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Since this is the “form” equivalent of item of property constraint (P2305), what about other entity types? Have there been proposals for those, and/or are they needed? Maybe it would be useful to create several at once. (Compare the sandbox properties, where we have one for every data type – though I don’t know if we actually need that many versions of item of property constraint (P2305).) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 17:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think the other entity types needs a "item of property constraint (P2305)". But that is only my thought. -Premeditated (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata:WikiProject Properties/Reports/Datatypes has a column with some of the constraints on values. Format and range constraints frequently have similar functions.

For coordinates, the value (0,0) is sometimes added by error. Maybe we could have a none-of constraint (Q52558054) for that.
A one-of constraint (Q21510859) for suggested values could work on die axis (P8751), a quantity-datatype property, with values 12 clock position, 6 clock position, etc.
For Wikibase installations with a more limited scope, values for dates might work with a list of suggested values to pick from.

If the same code would work for all of them, maybe it's worth adding them. --- Jura 09:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

SenseEdit

location of lexeme usageEdit

Under discussion

Description	for lexemes which are considered regional, the main locations where the lexeme is used
Data type	Item
Domain	lexemes
Allowed values	geographical locations
Example 1	carer (L290514) → caregiver (Q553079) (British word for caregiver)
Example 2	MISSING
Example 3	MISSING
See also	location of sense usage (P6084)

MotivationEdit

To be able to mark lexemes which are regional. Uziel302 (talk) 10:02, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

this seems very vague Nepalicoi (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
I question the need for this, given the existence of location of sense usage (P6084). It would only be useful when the same regional lexeme has multiple senses, and the exact same regional distribution applies to each one of those senses. How common is that in reality? Multiple senses typically don't have identical origins. SM5POR (talk) 12:34, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose caregiver (Q553079) seems like a very bad example for a location. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 19:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose See SM5POR's comment. Even if a word is currently only used in one region, it may start being used elsewhere with a different sense in other regions, so it's not actually a property of the lexeme. For example, the word "cookie". That was originally used in the US to mean a variety of flat round sweet items, some of which are soft and chewy, some of which are firm and crumbly. Only the latter are biscuits in British English, so the word "cookie" has since been adopted to refer to the former. It's also now used worldwide to refer to browser cookies. - Nikki (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

radical (P5280) for non-CJVK languagesEdit

What's the status of this? special:ListProperties?datatype=wikibase-lexeme gives no hints but something mentioned at lexeme talk:L1 made me wonder. Arlo Barnes (talk) 00:18, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

@Arlo Barnes: what is your question or proposal exactly? radical (P5280) is not meant form lexemes. The talk on L1 was old, two month later combines (P5238) was created that can be used for that I think. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 07:46, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@VIGNERON: Thank you, I think that answers any questions I had. Arlo Barnes (talk) 19:58, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Language Council of Norway Termwiki IDEdit

Withdrawn

Description	Identifikator for en term i Språkrådets termwiki
Represents	The Norwegian Language Council term wiki (Q55404177)
Data type	External identifier
Template parameter	no:Mal:Autoritetsdata
Domain	term (Q1969448)
Allowed values	[a-åA-Å]+[ [a-åA-ÅZ]+]*
Example 1	ocean current (Q129558) → Havstrøm https://www.termwiki.sprakradet.no/wiki/Havstrøm !-- universe (Q1) → verdi -->
Example 2	concept (Q151885) → Begrep https://www.termwiki.sprakradet.no/wiki/Begrep
Example 3	recreational vehicle (Q746448) → Bobil https://www.termwiki.sprakradet.no/wiki/Bobil
Example 4	elliptical galaxy (Q184348) → Elliptisk galakse https://www.termwiki.sprakradet.no/wiki/Elliptisk galakse
Source	https://www.termwiki.sprakradet.no
Planned use	As identifier for terms
Number of IDs in source	1000+
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://www.termwiki.sprakradet.no/wiki/$1
Robot and gadget jobs	Mix'n'Match
Wikidata project	Terms

Motivering/begrunnelseEdit

The Language Council of Norway runs a termwiki where designated term group within their working areas are definig their terms and get them approved by the governmental Language Council of Norway Norwegian Language Council (Q1348705). The content is marked by Creative Commons CC0 1.0 license The term in the english language is also included. the content can be imported from http://termwiki.sprakradet.no/tbx/ Pmt (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Support external identifier John Samuel (talk) 18:02, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

DiscussionEdit

By chanche! This proporty allready exists as Language Council of Norways termwiki ID (P5445): Identifier for a term in the Norwegian language, as given by an entry in the Language Council of Norways termwiki. This is a terminology database for academic disciplines. The terms are usually given as Bokmål, Nynorsk, and English variants. , so kindly stop/delete this proposal. Really sorry for the inconvinience! Pmt (talk) 18:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata:Property proposal/Lexemes

See alsoEdit

Contents

LexemeEdit

MediumEdit

MotivationEdit

DiscussionEdit

Kielitoimiston sanakirja IDEdit

MotivationEdit

DiscussionEdit

CantoDict identifiersEdit

CantoDict word IDEdit

CantoDict character IDEdit

MotivationEdit

DiscussionEdit

FormEdit

notable misspellingsEdit

MotivationEdit

DiscussionEdit

form of property constraintEdit

MotivationEdit

DiscussionEdit

SenseEdit

location of lexeme usageEdit

MotivationEdit

DiscussionEdit

radical (P5280) for non-CJVK languagesEdit

The Language Council of Norway Termwiki IDEdit

Motivering/begrunnelseEdit

DiscussionEdit