[18:41:17] I think that the Wikidata Lexemes feature can play a part in that, but I haven't completely figured Lexemes either. (re @Al: Abstract Wikiglossia šŸ¤” Get that domain registered šŸ˜) [18:49:01] Thatā€™s our theory too. But Iā€™m Wikifunctions terms, I think of a glossary as a pair of Z12s: a term and a gloss. Pairing the two means that a term in any language is bound to its gloss in any language, which is kinda neat. (re @amire80: I think that the Wikidata Lexemes feature can play a part in that, but I haven't completely figured out Lexemes either.) [18:49:51] [in not Iā€™m] [18:51:34] interresting, but a gloss is a bit poor as a data (that why lexemes have other statements on senses, like a link to a Q-id) [18:51:35] depending on what you want to do with it, just the gloss may not be enough (re @Al: Thatā€™s our theory too. But in Wikifunctions terms, I think of a glossary as a pair of Z12s: a term and a gloss. Pairing the two ...) [18:53:59] Who's included in "our"? :) (re @Al: Thatā€™s our theory too. But in Wikifunctions terms, I think of a glossary as a pair of Z12s: a term and a gloss. Pairing the two ...) [18:54:56] Thatā€™s why I think of it as a gloss rather than a definition. There would generally be a definition that references the pair, and that would have as much or as little structure as oneā€™s purposes required. (re @Nicolas: interresting, but a gloss is a bit poor as a data (that why lexemes have other statements on senses, like a link to a Q-id) [18:54:57] depe...) [18:56:13] This project and its community, as far as I know. šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø (re @amire80: Who's included in "our"? :)) [20:39:07] Are there any written discussions about it? (re @Al: This project and its community, as far as I know. šŸ¤·ā€ā™‚ļø) [20:47:47] Any aspect in particular? These are our immediate steps towards the Abstract Wikipedia vision: https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Status_updates/2024-02-07#Quarterly_planning [20:52:15] That the Wikidata Lexemes feature can play a part in creating a good glossary feature. (re @Al: Any aspect in particular? These are our immediate steps towards the Abstract Wikipedia vision: https://www.wikifunctions.org/wik...) [20:56:36] Not glossaries in particular, that I recall. Itā€™s mostly about Wikipedia articles, but other forms of ā€œabstract contentā€ are enabled by the technology needed to support Abstract Wikipedia. [20:57:36] This feels like the detailed kind of discussion that should happen on-wiki, rather than in an ephemeral venue like Telegram? [20:59:09] FWIW, if we were going to create a glossary type, I'd recommend a typed map of a typed pair of monolingual texts to a multi-liingual text ā€“ <[term, definition] => translation> or similar. [21:03:22] I think we are thinking along similar lines. I thought Iā€™d wait until we had support for Pairs before starting a further proposal. But Iā€™m happy to put a placeholder on-wiki for ideas and discussion. (re @wmtelegram_bot: FWIW, if we were going to create a glossary type, I'd recommend a typed map of a typed pair of monolingual texts to a ...) [21:06:57] James_F, that's exactly why I was asking whether there are existing written discussions about it :) [21:08:48] +1 [21:08:52] (To both.) [21:33:31] I created https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Type_proposals/Multilingual_gloss. Please feel free to edit freely. Thereā€™s nothing from you there yet, @amire80 ; your thoughts would go in the Uses section, I imagine. Iā€™ve quoted you, @jdforrester and Nicolas; please feel free to edit or sign them.