User talk:Amgauna

Hello, you have come here looking for the meaning of the word User talk:Amgauna. In DICTIOUS you will not only get to know all the dictionary meanings for the word User talk:Amgauna, but we will also tell you about its etymology, its characteristics and you will know how to say User talk:Amgauna in singular and plural. Everything you need to know about the word User talk:Amgauna you have here. The definition of the word User talk:Amgauna will help you to be more precise and correct when speaking or writing your texts. Knowing the definition ofUser talk:Amgauna, as well as those of other words, enriches your vocabulary and provides you with more and better linguistic resources.
Wiktionary:Babel
Invalid language code: pt-br
pt-5Esta utilizadora tem um nível profissional de português.
JS-2This user has an intermediate command of JavaScript, and can understand most code written by others.
Lua-2This user has an intermediate command of Lua, and can understand most code written by others.
en-2This user is able to contribute with an intermediate level of English.
fr-2Cette utilisatrice dispose de connaissances intermédiaires en français.
es-1Esta usuaria tiene un conocimiento básico del español.
it-1Questa utente può contribuire con un livello elementare d'italiano.
de-0Diese Benutzerin beherrscht Deutsch nicht (oder versteht es nur mit beträchtlichen Schwierigkeiten).
Search user languages or scripts

RDF entries

Latest comment: 6 years ago20 comments4 people in discussion

Please review if these would be suitable for a dictionary instead of an encyclopedia. The entries also have several formatting issues. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 10:36, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection I already used the wikitionary (Portuguese). I'm trying to put the meaning of what is the Triple RDF database SPARQ. Amgauna (talk) 10:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The term seems to be fairly specific technical terminology. The entry format was simply copied from RDF, and the definitions were excessively long and verbose. I encourage you to read both WT:EL and WT:CFI, and perhaps look at some other smaller entries to see how they are formatted. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 11:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection This is already summarized, this technical manual has approximately 1000 sheets. This explanation is already summarized, unless a technician will not understand the meaning of the text. Amgauna (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Everything in this diff is still way too long-winded. Compare the lengths of those definitions to the others around them and those of an average dictionary entry here. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 11:23, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection I looked. These are totally different subjects. That's an RDF relative to electricity, semiconductor talk. The RDF that I put in has to be with computer programming, there has to be with SPARQL database. I am Senior Business Systems Analyst. Amgauna (talk) 11:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The field doesn't matter; Wiktionary definitions are not supposed to be a dozen of sentences long. If the definitions seriously need that much detail (which I doubt they would), it's likely too specific to meet WT:CFI anyway. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 11:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection and @Mellohi! There is no way to explain what is RDF Triple Case in SPARQL Query (database) and a technician understands how it works in just one sentence. The technical manual is about 1000 pages long, and that text of the explanation has been summarized at the most, less than this a technician will not understand. Amgauna (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection and @Mellohi! This SPARQL Triple Case RDF is used by people who use Wikidata. Amgauna (talk) 12:11, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

If "less than this a technician will not understand" as you claim, then it's not really fit for Wiktionary. As I said earlier, Wiktionary definitions are not supposed to read like Wikipedia definitions and consist of several sentences. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 12:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection and @Mellohi! What I put in is an explanation of how RDF Triple Case works, which is used in SPARQL Query. SPARQL is the database that makes all wikimedia projects work online on the internet. This SPARQL is a database web server used in wikimedia's online projects. Amgauna (talk) 13:18, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Look the technical manual = SPARQL Tutorial (Apache Jena database web server) = https://jena.apache.org/tutorials/sparql.html

Look the technical manual = SPARQL 1.1 Query Language - W3C Recommendation 21 March 2013 = https://www.w3.org/TR/sparql11-query/

Look the technical manual = An Introduction to RDF and the Jena RDF API (SPARQL) = http://jena.apache.org/tutorials/rdf_api.html

Look the Wikidata Inroduction = https://www.wikidata.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikidata:Introduction/en

Look the Wikidata:SPARQL query service/Help of Wikidata Query = https://www.wikidata.orghttps://dictious.com/en/Wikidata:SPARQL_query_service/Wikidata_Query_Help/en

@Surjection and @Mellohi! Within Wiktionary it is missing to exist the meaning of several technical terms that exist within this technical manual that is used by diverse technicians (and by several people, of diverse languages), that use Wikidata daily. Amgauna (talk) 15:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Only Wikidata itself is a fairly narrow scope and I can't see why the entry should exist outside of an Appendix, if on Wiktionary at all. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 16:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection and @Mellohi! In paper dictionary, for sale in physical stores, and for sale in online stores, there are technical terms with definitions of what is the technical term and what it serves. Here in Brazil there is this paper dictionary for sale. I searched online now and found, there is a dictionary of technical terms for sale on amazon.com = https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_25?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=dictionary+of+scientific+and+technical+terms&sprefix=dictionary+technical+term%2Caps%2C304&crid=1UT81I0XDV9AK and This information is missing existing here within Wikitionary. Amgauna (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection and @Mellohi! Dictionary of technical terms is a type of dictionary used by technicians for dozens of years. This information of meanings of several technical terms is lacking to exist within the Wiktionary. Technical terms have been dozens of years. I'm not talking about anything new. Amgauna (talk) 18:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

The first definition listed on the page already covers the sense of RDF you want to talk about. We do not need to get into the details of how RDF databases are queried and such. That's for Wikipedia to deal with. — justin(r)leung { (t...) | c=› } 18:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Surjection and @Mellohi! and @Justinrleung This explanation of RDF does not cover all the meaning of it. The RDF I mentioned is the one used within the SPARQL database. If you take a paper technical dictionary of technical terms, and compare it with what exists within Wiktionary, you will see that various information does not match what you have of information within the paper technical dictionaries. In here I have seen a lot of incomplete information, and various technical terms that exist, but which do not exist online here. Amgauna (talk) 19:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

If you want to present a definition that will allow a technician to understand, then you're using the wrong tool. This is a dictionary. Dictionaries give brief, concise definitions of what terms mean when they're used. They don't explain things. They're about terms as language, not about the things they refer to. If I write a definition on a species of plant, I don't enumerate the technical characteristics that distinguish it from other species. If I write a definition on a type of dessert, I don't provide the recipe or serving suggestions. If I write a definition on a type of vehicle, I don't enumerate its parts and explain how they function, nor do I explain how their function differs from those of similar vehicles. Those are all useful types of information, but they don't belong in a dictionary. I notice that the domain names of all but one of your examples end in -pedia, as in encyclopedia. We don't need to be an encyclopedia, because we already have one: Wikipedia.
Our definitions should just say what sort of thing the term refers to, and link to other sources of information for the rest: a motorcycle is "an open-seated motor-powered vehicle with two wheels". I could say that it has the wheels oriented in the direction of travel, with the structure that holds the front wheel being capable of turning at various angles to the line of travel in order to change direction, that it has handlebars attached to the front-wheel structure for the purpose of allowing control of that turning, and that it has the seat mounted between the wheels. These are all characteristics of motorcycles. There are also various features used in distinguishing between a motorcycle and a moped or an electric bicycle that would be indispensable to a government regulator or law enforcement officer in determining whether a given vehicle is, in fact, legally a motorcycle. It's important that those exist, somewhere, but a dictionary isn't equipped to cover those.
Think of it this way: you meet someone on the street and you mention you work with RDF systems. They ask you "what's RDF?". Assuming this person doesn't have a technical background, how can you answer that in a minute or two without causing them to swear never to ask you a question again?
Writing a dictionary definition for a technical term isn't easy. It requires both technical knowledge and knowledge of how dictionary entries are constructed. It also requires the ability to take a vast amount of detail and distill it into the essence of what the term means, which involves lots of value judgments about what's lexically most important. That's why our coverage of technical terms is deficient. We need all the help we can get to fix that, but not at the cost of ceasing to be a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz I'm not in the wrong tool. Do you have a dictionary on paper? I have dictionaries on paper. Within the paper dictionary this information exists with the full summary explanation. What I questioned is that here the information in various items is incomplete, and there is information of technical terms and words within the paper dictionary, and here online that information does not yet exist. And technical terms is something that has existed for tens of years, all technicians use it. I've been logged in since Wiktionary since 2013, I remember reading years ago that this Wiktionary project is an online dictionary. Amgauna (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Chuck Entz An example of incomplete information is this technical term = https://en.wiktionary.orghttps://dictious.com/en/technical_term#1%20English There is no example of which professions use the technical terms: scientists, lawyers, doctors, engineers, electricians, biologists, etc. Every profession that exists uses a term that is specific to the profession that works. Amgauna (talk) 00:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Wikious
Boobota
Sagapedia