Does integraality make sense on Lexemes? Does it work at all? Let’s find out!
Description
Description
Status | Subtype | Assigned | Task | ||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Open | None | T294889 Assess whether integraality works/makese sense for Lexemes | |||
Resolved | JeanFred | T312729 Support grouping by other Wikibase concepts than wdt:Pxyz |
Event Timeline
Comment Actions
So, I don’t know the first thing about the Lexemes data model, but some early thoughts:
integraality has 3 parts: selection, grouping, and description
- Selection should work just fine out of the box: something like |selector_sparql=dct:language wd:Q12107 does get all Breton lexemes
- Grouping:
- does it make any sense (no pun intended) to group by property? Are Lexemes even expected to have statements in general, or do they rather go on the Forms/Senses?
- grouping by lexical category would need adaptation
- Description:
- describing along Language and Lexical category probably needs a new ColumnConfig object, but should be doable.
- describing along statements: same question, does this make much sense in general?
Joining through to Forms and Senses might be tricky
Comment Actions
Sooo, smth like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Jean-Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric/Integraality/Lexemes does return smth (no idea whether it makes any sense though ^^)
Comment Actions
Thanks @VIGNERON for fixing the dashboard! Also made the transposed one https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/User:Jean-Fr%C3%A9d%C3%A9ric/Integraality/Lexemes_bis
Comment Actions
For lexemes a good grouping predicate would be wikibase:lexicalCategory and dct:language