[08:47:00] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Newsletter 176:
[08:47:01] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> * What could abstract content look like? - Guest contribution by @mahir256  
[08:47:03] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> * Recent Changes in the software
[08:47:04] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> * Function of the Week: select representation from lexeme -- first time using Lexemes from Wikidata in Wikifunctions
[08:47:06] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> https://www.wikifunctions.org/wiki/Wikifunctions:Status_updates/2024-10-17
[09:08:30] <wm-bb>	 <Toby> Interesting newsletter. Thanks @mahir256 . Now that we're bringing in lexemes that have languages associated with them, it may be worth discussing whether to write functions that reduce them all the way to strings, or whether to keep them attached to their language as monolingual strings (my first example: Z19252). Or write both?
[09:09:51] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> I absolutely agree
[09:13:09] <wm-bb>	 <Jan_ainali> Are you agreeing it is worth discussing which to pick or that we write both? (re @vrandecic: I absolutely agree)
[09:22:49] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Discussions are worthwhile, in general - but personally, I think it's a good idea to have both
[09:27:31] <wm-bb>	 <Jan_ainali> One thing I wonder about the description is the "This format, .. , is what I believe should be used to store abstract content for Abstract Wikipedia." is the lack of functions. Is that just in this example, or general? 
[09:27:31] <wm-bb>	 <Jan_ainali> (We have been having examples before on the form "being the nth largest X in Y" which I imagined would be more dynamic rather than static like the example given.) (re @vrandecic: Newsletter 176:
[09:27:33] <wm-bb>	 <Jan_ainali> * What could abstract content look like? - Guest contribution by @mahir256  
[09:27:34] <wm-bb>	 <Jan_ainali> * Recent Changes in the software
[09:27:36] <wm-bb>	 <Jan_ainali> * ...)
[10:35:09] <wm-bb>	 <Toby> Should we consider monolingual text to be an officially supported type?  I haven't noticed any problems with it. (re @vrandecic: Discussions are worthwhile, in general - but personally, I think it's a good idea to have both)
[11:26:58] <wm-bb>	 <vrandecic> Oh, that's a good question -- I think it should be fine, the only issues with it are possibly with rendering and parsing not being particularly convenient.
[12:12:58] <wm-bb>	 <mahir256> That would just be for this example; having functions in the abstract content would be fine if they can be represented in a similar fashion to the rest of the abstract content
[12:12:58] <wm-bb>	 <mahir256> (the use of QIDs to build up a timestamp, rather than using one directly, could be considered the application of a function) (re @Jan_ainali: One thing I wonder about is the the lack of functions in the example explained by "This format, .. , is what I believe should be...)
[20:26:13] <wm-bb>	 <hogue_456> At the moment there are many topics for what I dont know how to represent the data in Wikidata and so it is difficult to write abstract content when the structure in Wikidata is not clear. For adding descriptions to Wikidata I am using a Spreadsheet and functions to generate the different cases. I wish a system what makes it possible to put together different
[20:26:13] <wm-bb>	 boilerplate template <clipped message>
[20:26:14] <wm-bb>	 <hogue_456> s for sentences and a function in the background to generate the abstract content for it. Thinking about how to express a concept in natural language can help adding data to Wikidata through defining schemas after finding a new topic. Maybe I will work on a boilertemplate system to generate abstract content when I understand the Syntax.