As an anonymous user, you can only add new data. If you would like to also modify existing data, please create an account and indicate your languages on your user page.

Help talk:Annotation

From OmegaWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Feedback on Help:Annotation[edit]

I think part of what makes the OmegaWiki project so challenging is that it is a complex piece of software, to do a very complex job. Dictionaries contain a complicated logical structure of information. This means it will be hard to write effective documentation, but it's very important to write this documentation in order to let people who want to build a dictionary understand the logical structure of information, and work in those terms, without getting distracted by the concepts the software uses.

This maybe sounds like a very obvious statement. But I think it points to a weakness in the current revision of Help:Annotation. The page discusses the OmegaWiki software. I think what we need instead are instructions to a dictionary contributor which are written in terms of dictionary concepts and tasks. For instance, the page currently begins, "The OmegaWiki software supports annotating arbitrary records in the database with other data." What it could say is something like, "An antonym is a DefinedMeaning which has the opposite meaning to another DefinedMeaning. A hypernym is [well... I don't know what a hypernym is]. A Reading is used in Japanese to give the pronunciation of an Expression. Collectively, these kinds of dictionary entries are called Annotations." Then it could refer to articles like How to add a Reading, How to add an antonym, How to label a DefinedMeaning with a part of speech, etc. (Note how Help:List of annotations does a good job of explaining using dictionary concepts instead of software concepts.) — JimDeLaHunt 06:20, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Updating the annotation categories[edit]

This page identifies four categories of annotation:

  • String properties: arbitrary free text values which are monolingual.
  • Text properties: multilingual free text values.
  • URL properties: links to web addresses that contain a resource of the indicated type.
  • Option properties: lists of options. Used for lexical class.

In reality, of course, the annotation categories are:

  • Plain texts
  • Translatable texts
  • Links
  • Option values

Conceivably these differently named categories each map directly to one of the four named in the (out-of-date) description. But the names may have changed because the categories themselves were expanded or re-directed. Could someone knowledgeable please update this information? (At such time, please do make it clear what it is about multilingual or translatable annotations that they comprise a separate category? Thank you in advance.)

Btw, "Links" as a name isn't so helpful, but "links to web addresses" makes it clear what kind of annotation this is. Perhaps the phrase "that contain a resource of the indicated type" could be clarified though — at present, "Wikipedia article" and "idiom" are acceptable property values, but surely "home page" is something many expressions possess (for example: for Expression:France), and many other pages would seem to be usefully noted (eg, the US Dept of State pages of country fact sheets, the World Factbook pages, etc.).

As for the other names and descriptions, to be honest, I don't understand them at all. I know only how to enter IPA pronunciations and etymology because I could figure them out from the interface. How to add an annotation with some other type of information is opaque to me. Rsperberg (talk) 00:37, 31 January 2013 (CET)

The idea, in the long term, would be to get rid of these categories for the user (though internally the database would stay the same), and have only one combobox where you would select the annotation you want (part of speech, etymology, link to Wikipedia, or whatever), and then when you select the annotation, the html input fields would be created accordingly on the fly (with javascript). I think it would be easier for the user, but as always, we need programmers... I am sure that this is feasible, but I don't know how long it would take to implement.
For now, I'll try to update the documentation, you are entirely right that it is outdated. --Kip (talk) 15:12, 31 January 2013 (CET)
The changed page is wonderfully clear. Thank you. Rsperberg (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2013 (CET)
I am not finished ;-) --Kip (talk) 09:54, 1 February 2013 (CET)