Talk:DefinedMeaning

From OmegaWiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Words and translations

Why the word must be translated ? And what if there is no such word in the language of the translation ? I think that the more important thing is to explain the original word, isn't it ? luna 20:03, 16 March 2006 (CET)

It is the combination of the word and the definition that must be translated. When you translate "horse" into Dutch it becomes "paard". The expression "paard" has multiple meanings, it is therefore important to translate bothe the definition and the word itself in order to know what is exactly meant.
When there is no corresponing frase in the "target" language, you will look for a word, a phrase that provides the best fit. It may mean that it only serves in translation but that it has to be used with care. In this case it is not a "native" or "indiginous" meaning and consequently a flag must be set to indicate that it works best in one way to this language. GerardM 16:49, 19 March 2006 (CET)
I still don't really understand the relation between Expression, Definition and DefinedMeaning.
[...]
I think that actually a good example could be very cool.
luna 20:01, 19 March 2006 (CET)
I would say that here, expression = spelling (I would have called it spelling myself).
Definition is DefinedMeaning. The only difference between these 2 may be that DefinedMeaning is the concept itself (the fact that something has a definition), and Definition is the actual sentence that is used. (I see you're French, so if you want, we can discuss it in French).
Let's take colour for example. "colour" the word itself, with 6 letters is the expression. It has several definitions/DefinedMeaning (7 noun definitions and 5 verb definitions). There is also another expression in the same language that is linked to the same meanings: "color". In another language, it would be "couleur", and each 7 noun defs and 5 verb defs should be translated in French (and maybe they are not all definitions of the expression "couleur").
Now, some words can not be translated, as for example that obscure Dutch word: wadlopen which means (if I'm correct) walking in the water at low tide. In these cases, the definition can be translated in French, but there is not expression for that meaning.
I hope I'm right :) Kipcool 23:06, 23 March 2006 (CET)

[edit] On DefinedMeaning and its implementation

I would like to share some thoughts on the implementation of the database on which OmegaWiki is going to be based on. Although I am a very recent member of this site, I dare to write this note because I believe that ideas on the OmegaWiki engine have only a relatively short time window for discussion before they are considered approved and written in the marble (provided this hasn't happened yet). Let me know if it should be placed somewhere else.

In DefinedMeaning I find some contradictory definitions for a DefinedMeaning. In the preamble it is said that it is a table in a database. In the "Definition" section it is defined as "the combination of a word (so called Expression) and a definition in one particular language that describe a concept", which looks more like an entry in this table. The rest of the page does not clarify the real nature of DefinedMeaning, only how it should be treated. I tried to read other explanations in Talk:DefinedMeaning, in the talk section of other users on this site and on other source through the Internet, but I must say that none of these entirely clarified this concept to me. So, I will try to explain here what I have understood, or dreamt, about the subject, by means of an example. I hope that some member of the commission will tell me whether I am very far from the current implementation or not.

Let us assume that a random user, like me, wants to enter the Italian word conto in the OmegaWiki. With a dictionary at hand I first understand that this word has at least two meanings. So, I make a new entry in the words-it table, which could be: 

          words-it --> 13 conto

Then I go to the meaning table meanings, and enter two meanings. These meanings should in general be more elaborated, but let us keep things simple, for the time being: 

          meanings --> 45 it="un calcolo, l'atto di calcolare"
                       46 it="un registro di debiti e di crediti"

As you see, each meaning is identified by an integer number, 45 and 46 in this case. The fact that the table has a column for storing an explanation of this meaning in Italian is accessory, and, to tell you the truth, you do not need to understand these explanations to understand the functioning. Last, I go to a relation table and enter a relation between word 13 in words-it and meanings 45 and 46 in meanings: 

          acceptations-it --> 13 45
                              13 46

Good. A simple query system on this database will now be able to tell me that conto has at least two meanings, and that their explanation in Italian is un calcolo, ... and un registro .... I am happy and I go to bed. But an English user, in the same evening, feels compelled to enter the word account. So, he follows the same strategy and enters: 

          words-en --> 19 account

Then, he is magically informed that he is interested by meaning 46 (more on this later), so he goes to table meanings and writes: 

          meanings --> 46 it="un registro ..." en="a record of debit and credit entries"
                       47 en="a statement explaining one's conduct"

(the meaning of 46 in Italian was, obviously, already there; he just added the English meaning). Then, of course, he must add: 

          acceptations-en --> 19 46
                              19 47

Last, his French friend decides it is time to insert calcul: 

          words-fr --> 35 calcul

          meanings --> 45 it="un calcolo, ..." fr="opération ou ensemble d'opérations"
                       48 fr="concrétion pierreuse qui se forme ..."

          acceptations-fr --> 35 45
                              35 48

This scheme has several advantages. First, with only this amount of data inserted, a query on conto (IT) will be able to return something like this: 

          conto: 1) un calcolo, l'atto di calcolare (fr=calcul);
                 2) un registro di debiti e di crediti (en=account);

The fact that explanations are in Italian is not significant. If all meanings were also translated into Japanese, you could get an Italian vocabulary for Japaneses with translations in English and French. Actual strings could also be held somewhere else, for instance, all Italian strings in a meanings-it table linked to meanings.

Second, note that none of the three users had to know the exact correspondence of his words into foreign languages: as long as he is able to understand the explanations in the meanings table, he will be able to contribute (and the underlying engine will automatically discover links for him). This scheme could also be used to write a dictionary of synonyms for just one language

The fact that words (or, better, expressions) are linked through a table of meanings is very important. As you can see, if N languages are involved on the same level, the overall cost of data insertion and bookkeeping scales as N. This is in contrast to traditional two-languages dictionaries, where the cost for a full translation environment scales as N2.

In a personal page (User:Kipcool/all_about_DefinedMeanings) user Kipcool tries to express his understanding of a DefinedMeaning, which is not far from mine. The first and the second one are particularly interesting. How do we know when a meaning is already inserted in the meanings table? Note that this would be a problem even if all meanings were expressed in just one language, because there is no obvious way to browse through them.

All in all, I think that the DefinedMeaning concept is far from being understood by new users, and a more detailed DefinedMeaning page is absolutely required. --Bettelli 09:42, 22 March 2006 (CET)

First of all all Expressions belong to a Language. Therefore in an expression the language is implied. The consequence is that the definition for that expression will have to be in the same language. To translate completely into an other language, you will have to translate the definition as exact as possible as well as provide an Expression that is the translation.
When a new word is added, it is clear that a DefinedMeaning can exist for the concept. The consequence is that we will often have to merge new DMs into one. The result will be one DM that is richer in translations. GerardM 15:08, 23 March 2006 (CET)
I believe it is important to insist on this point, because it will be central to the development of OmegaWiki; I also find very strange that no one is talking about these issues here. Maybe this thread should be moved to a more visible place?
I agree with you that all expressions should be associated to a language. However, I do not see why "the consequence is that the definition for that expression will have to be in the same language"; this is no consequence at all, it is just, as I believe to understand, a design choice (and not very good, in my opinion). I can think of more than one reason why it should not be this way. Suppose I want to introduce the 28 or so known Etruscan words in OmegaWiki. Then, I will not be able to write the description in Etruscan ... Also, what if for some reason I want to introduce words from a dialect, but, at least initially, I do not want to introduce explanations in the same dialect? I think that an Italian dialect with definitions in Italian (then automatically linked to definitions in other main languages) would be valuable enough (in some sense, even more valuable than definitions in the original dialect). Won't I be allowed to introduce them?
Then, you write that "the consequence is that we will often have to merge new DMs into one". What does it mean? From the definition you give in the initial page a DefinedMeaning is an (Expression, description) pair. How can you merge two such pairs? How can you blend the two Expressions into one? In my opinion, Expressions can only be linked (through abstract meanings) and not merged.
But, most important, I asked whether my interpretation fits your idea of DefinedMeaning, and I can see no hint to an answer on this. What I want to understand is wether the very important relational layer behind OmegaWiki is considered to be fixed without further discussions. Because, if it is still open, I think it should be discussed better and with more details, and I would definitely like to participate to this discussion. --Bettelli 20:41, 23 March 2006 (CET)
You do not understand; an Expression and a definition in the same language are what makes a DefinedMeaning. This DefinedMeaning is translated consequently the definition is an integral part. When you cannot define the meaning of an Etruscan word, it has an isolated place in the database. When it can be defined, chances are that it can be associated with an existing DefinedMeaning. That will suffice.
When you want to add translations (=expressions) but no definitions to a DefinedMeaning, then you don't. It means that you agree with the definition but do not bother to translate the definition. Fine.
You can merge DefinedMeanings when you agree that both definitions define the same thing. The trick will be to choose which DefinedMeaning is to be merged into the other.
The relational layer is fixed. Several experts have expressed their opinion that it can work. But more importantly there was no other mechanism that would allow us to do the same thing. Now discussion to get a better understanding is encouraged. When you can prove that the concept of DefinedMeaning is wrong, we have a problem. GerardM 23:08, 23 March 2006 (CET)
I think you're speaking about the same thing, that is: what Bettelli is talking about is (almost) what will be in OmegaWiki. The hardest part here is to explain how it works so that everybody can understand it. A good start may be to add concrete examples to DefinedMeaning. Kipcool 23:44, 23 March 2006 (CET)

[edit] What I understand on the topic

I'm a little lost, is it like this?: 

                          English                  French

                                                       ___________  synonyme
                                                      |
 Expressions                king                 roi == reine
                              |                   |      |    
    coupling ---------------->|                   |      |
                              |     Translation   |      |
 DefinedMeaning        he who governs  ====     ce qui gouverne


--Demos-言 13:03, 25 March 2006 (CET)

This is how I believed (and still believe) it should be (although reine is the feminine of roi) --Bettelli 16:50, 25 March 2006 (CET)
Not at all. I will get you some diagrams on line that describe it better :) GerardM 14:17, 25 March 2006 (CET)
I have an ERD that is based on the tarball. I will upload this and explain a bit when I can upload it. Currently the size of files that can be uploaded is too limited .. I have asked Erik to ammend this.. Thanks, GerardM 17:12, 25 March 2006 (CET)

[edit] I've been wondering...

I have read aplenty of all these discussions already, and I had, in fact, a little question. I don't know if it is really a big thing, but I'd like to hear your ideas.

Just, for a moment, think in Vietnamese. You add the word tôi. The DefinedMeaning corresponding to this would be (in English) something like: "the speaker when he/she refers to him/herself". In English this would be I, so you do the things that need to be done that the system sees I as a spelling of "the speaker...". All right. You could go to bed, now, but you're enthusiastic so you add another word.

Anh. This means I when a big brother speaks to his little brothers or sisters. So you invent a good DefinedMeaning (something like: "the speaker when he refers to himself speaking to his little brothers and/or sisters") and I is, again, a good translation, so you do what is necessary. You're tired, you go to bed.

Now there's an English speaking person browsing the dictionary, wondering what I means. If I have this all right, she/he will now get two definitions:

  1. the speaker when he/she refers to him/herself
  2. the speaker when he refers to himself speaking to his little brothers and/or sisters

No he/she will be thinking: "Okay, the first one's all right. But what's the second definition all about? The first one catches it all already, doesn't it?"

This is just one of the many examples that could be found. Am I forgetting something? Do I have something wrong?

David 14:56, 3 April 2006 (CEST)

Of course, the definition 2 can be said I in English, but I doesn't mean only the def 2, it's a broader term (kind of an hypernym I would say). That is as if you attached the word animal to the definition of an horse. So, in my opinion, we should not link the def 2 as a definition of I. Now, what I don't know is how/where should we specify that Anh can be translated as I in English.
Maybe saying that I is an hypernym of def 2 would be ok? Then, the software would propose hypernyms as translations when there is no exact translation...? Kipcool 16:48, 3 April 2006 (CEST)
When a DefinedMeaning has a translation that does not fit its definition, it will get a flag set to indicate that the translation does best fit the DefinedMeaning but has to be used with caution. The Vietamese word Anh would have its own DefinedMeaning. It would translate to the English I just like tôi would. These DefinedMeanings will eventually not be shown for those people who do not have languages selected where the translation has this flag set to off. GerardM 18:07, 3 April 2006 (CEST)
Ah, I see. You've thought about everything. :-) It's getting more and more complex, but then languages are complex, aren't they? David 12:48, 4 April 2006 (CEST)
Naturally flagging a possible translation as "no good fit" is not sufficcient, I'm afraid. How would one deal with the case that anh must be used in the context where it applies, and tôi would be a outright wrong translation in this context? I do not know whether or not that's true for anh/tôi, but of course there are such cases, as well as more lenient ones. This requires collective (at least pairwise) flagging of the words of one language with respect to each of their possible common translations into the other language. Likely but not necessarily this relation holds for translations into other languages as well. -- Purodha Blissenbach 03:23, 10 July 2006 (CEST)
If you use an example only to say that you do not know if it applies, it is hard to accept it as a valid example. David does speak Vietnamese and he was happy with the answer .... GerardM 07:26, 10 July 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Who decides the definition?

Who decides the definition part of the defined meaning? If it is bad, how can it be changed - who decides on that, where, and when? // Habj 19:42, 2 May 2006 (CEST)

The best way is to have a great definition. The original language pair of an Expression and a Definition make up the DefinedMeaning. To appreciate if a definition is good or not can be best decided by people who know that language because semantic drift may cause the unease with a definition. When the definition is not good in any language, a new definition needs to be agreed on and, this definition needs to be verified against all translations of the Expression and yes, it needs to be translated to all languages. GerardM 21:06, 2 May 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Have I got it?

Sometimes I think I understand the concept clearly, then I have doubts. I will restate what I think a DefinedMeaning is here, and hopefully get my mistakes corrected.

A DefinedMeaning is a combination of an Expression and a Definition; an Expression being a given graphic form (Spelling) associated with a given Language; and a Definition being the concept expressed by this Expression restated in one or several sentences.

To a DefinedMeaning may be attached Translated Definitions, that is a translation adhering as closely as possible to the concept as described by the First Definition. Ideally all Translated Definitions should be translations directly from the First Definition to minimize semantic drift, though most likely in practice this will not always be the case.

To a DefinedMeaning may be attached other Expressions, which may be in any Language including the Language associated with the DefinedMeaning. There may be several Expressions from the same Language (i.e.,synonyms). Each such match between an Expression and a Definition may be marked as being a good match or not; i.e, if the Expression adequately covers the given concept semantically and/or stylistically.

A DefinedMeaning may be started from any Language.

If the match between a secondary Expression and a Translated Definition for the same Language is good, this combination may be considered a DefinedMeaning as well, and there is no need to add another DefinedMeaning to express that particular concept for the Expression again. However, the Expression might very well express other concepts and need to be associated with other Definitions to form other DefinedMeanings.

If the match is not good, it is not clear whether or not they should be considered as a DefinedMeaning or not.

DefinedMeanings may be related to other DefinedMeanings, and the relationship may be classified as f ex narrower term, broader term, part of theme etc. The exact set of classifications that will be used is not yet finalized.

Any comments and clarifications are gratefully accepted.--Sannab 22:17, 3 May 2006 (CEST)

This is a great summary .. Thank you :)
I think that when an Expression does not fit the DefinedMeaning well, there should be a Definition and therefore a DefinedMeaning that does it justice. GerardM 22:44, 3 May 2006 (CEST)
Now suppose someone removes all Expressions and Definitions... has the DefinedMeaning then disappeared? You can't view it any more, but is it still present in the database? —Vildricianus 23:07, 3 May 2006 (CEST)

A DefinedMeaning will not exist without its Definition and Expression. Delete it, and the DefinedMeaning will be deleted as well. GerardM 23:29, 3 May 2006 (CEST)

Perfect! Will the ability to delete Definitions be restricted to sysops? —Vildricianus 19:43, 4 May 2006 (CEST)
I have no clue how this will be done. I think something more elaborate may be needed. Something like a certain babel level combined with a sysop ? GerardM 20:04, 4 May 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Keeping semantic drift under control

As a freshman on this wiki, I might have got something wrong, but anyway I'll give it a try. I was wondering about keeping the semantic drift under control. It might be useful to be able to track where the chain starts from, for example by showing that the original Defined Meaning was in Italian, then someone translated the pair to English, and someone else from English to French, and a fourth from French to Spanish. This might trigger an invitation to people who know Italian and Spanish to actually verify, and maybe cast a vote on, whether the Defined Meaning in Spanish still corresponds to the starting point in Italian; it will also help people who know more than one language to choose the starting point that is nearest to the original, or at least as a reminder to compare it for reference. Sergio.ballestrero 18:14, 8 May 2006 (CEST)

There is as yet not software support for showing the original DefinedMeaning, but it is a top priority to implement this. Hopefully it will be implemented soon.--Sannab 19:25, 8 May 2006 (CEST)

[edit] what about pronunciation ?

Will it exist a mechanism to link some Expressions which represents pronounciation with their respective spelling ?

luna 20:59, 9 May 2006 (CEST)

The answer to this one is that it will be linked not to the Expression but to the SynTrans table.. An Expression can have multiple ways of pronouncing them. This does not apply at the SynTrans level.
There is a direct link to the Expression from the SynTrans. :) GerardM 23:35, 9 May 2006 (CEST)
I don't really understand what you mean. What is exactly the SynTrans table and how can it apply to pronounciations ?
luna 20:02, 18 July 2006 (CEST)


[edit] Source language

This article states even in bold that a defined meaning can be generated from any language but upon giving me my edit rights Gerard told me that the English definition is the canon that must be translated as litterally as possible. I am sorry but this does not compute. Those two statement are simply contradictory. If for whatever reasons defined meanings can only be given in English (yet?) that should be clearly stated

Jcwf 16:43, 11 May 2006 (CEST)

The current text is: In the future a DefinedMeaning may be started from any Language, and eventually the First Expression and First Definition will be marked or shown aside on the edit page. For the moment all DM's are in English'... Mind the words in the future and for the moment. Since 14/7 it is now possible at add DM, but it is not yet possible to mark a Fist Defintion or a First Expression. So for the moment it is still advisable to have a First defintion in English. HenkvD 20:14, 18 July 2006 (CEST)
Actually Henk, I added those words after making my comment. I would not mind an update of the current status though. IMHO this page must reflect current status.

Jcwf 152.1.193.141 22:57, 1 August 2006 (CEST)

Retrieved from "http://www.omegawiki.org/Talk:DefinedMeaning"
Personal tools
Toolbox