Property talk:P9837

From Wikidata
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Documentation

Svensk ordbok ID
unique identifier of a page/entry in Svensk ordbok published by the Swedish Academy (SO)
[create Create a translatable help page (preferably in English) for this property to be included here]
Allowed entity types are Wikibase lexeme (Q51885771): the property may only be used on a certain entity type (Help)
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9837#Entity types, hourly updated report
Scope is as main value (Q54828448): the property must be used by specified way only (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9837#Scope, SPARQL
Format “[1-9]\d*(_\d)?: value must be formatted using this pattern (PCRE syntax). (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9837#Format, SPARQL
Lexeme language: Swedish (Q9027): this property should only be applied to lexemes with these languages (Help)
Exceptions are possible as rare values may exist. Exceptions can be specified using exception to constraint (P2303).
List of violations of this constraint: Database reports/Constraint violations/P9837#language

Removed unique constraint[edit]

This is because SO has multiple lexemes in one page, see example. I link with the same ID (hardcoding _1) to all pages in LexSO with underscore in the id to avoid semi-automatic matching just the sake of jumping to a paragraph.--So9q (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mahir256 see this discussion for uniqueness of the entries/IDs in this dictionary. Feel free to join. My view is one entry with an id in this dictionary can have different things:
  • the main entry which corresponds to a lexeme with different senses
  • additional phrases where the main entry appears, unfortunately these are not entries in this dictionary and hence have no IDs we can link or refer to.
Overall I consider the data maturity of this organization as low. That is very unfortunate because they are currently the official reference in Sweden for words and definition of words. So9q (talk) 11:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@So9q: Given that the index of the Svensk ordbok provided by svenska.se (reflected in the catalog for this property on Mishramilan (মিশ্রমিলন)) provides underscores in identifiers only to differentiate between parts of speech, simply tagging _1 on every identifier is potentially misleading. Also, if you look at the source of an entry in the Svensk ordbok, the individual idioms (<div> elements with 'class="idiom"') contain IDs that may be linked to directly using a fragment identifier (Q1440450) attached to the URL for the main entry; see, for example, the source I added to liten men naggande god (L1320224)'s described by source (P1343) claim. (This is similar to what is done with Diccionario de la lengua española entry ID (P12529) and sub-entries within the entries in that Spanish dictionary.) As such I do not believe it is helpful to assert that all sub-entries in a Svensk ordbok entry share the same identifier. Mahir256 (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. In that case, I suggest we build a custom tool to add those fragment identifiers. Until such a tool exists a main entry ID is better than no ID IMO.
Do you agree that an ID without fragment ID is more valuable than no ID?
Here is some Python code from chatgpt to extract the fragment ids.So9q (talk) 11:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I made a violentmonkey userscript for svenska.se which helps copy the relevant parts. :) So9q (talk) 15:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@So9q: No, I do not think that (for a Svensk ordbok sub-entry) an ID without a fragment is better than no ID at all, especially if you can still cite an entry with P1343 (with P854 in the reference) as I have shown above. Mahir256 (talk) 16:32, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I suggest we add the unique constraint again. WDYT? So9q (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]