SPARQL Queries to Extract Latin Verb Forms

[KesharwaniArpita]

Terms

• I have searched open and closed data issues
• I agree to follow Scribe-Data's Code of Conduct

Languages

Latin

Description

I have been working on SPARQL queries to extract the forms of Latin(Q397) verbs(Q24905), and so far, I have successfully completed the extraction for present tense forms and parts of the future tense. However, given the complexity of Latin verb conjugations and the existence of around 250 sets of grammatical rules, many other forms still need to be covered.

This issue aims to extend the work to include the following verb forms:

• Remaining future tense forms (F114, F121, F143, F144, F145, F147, F148, F149, F150, F151, F181, F197, F198, F215, F217, F231 are already done)
• Past imperfect forms
• Perfect tense forms
• Pluperfect forms
• or any other form that is present

Reference:
You can refer to this lexeme on Wikidata for an example of Latin verb lexemes.

Proposed Solution:

• Implement SPARQL queries to extract the above-mentioned verb forms.
• Ensure all possible grammatical variants for each verb form are included based on the sets of grammatical rules.
• You can also refer to refer to this directory and the Docs to write the query

Contributions:
I will be happy to work on this contribution and welcome and help anyone who is interested 😄 .

[Otom-obhazi]

@KesharwaniArpita can i help with this ??

[KesharwaniArpita]

Sure!!! @Otom-obhazi

[Otom-obhazi]

KesharwaniArpita#3
@KesharwaniArpita how does it look, any problem??

[KesharwaniArpita]

Ofcourse @Collins-Webdev. Just keep a check on the forms that have been done so you can work efficiently. And you can get he QID from the metadata files in the resources. Thank you for you help!!

[Collins-Webdev]

Hello @KesharwaniArpita ,
please, can you help me with this ? #479
It seems I am no longer allowed to resolve conflicts.

[andrewtavis]

Sorry for needing to close the PRs, but in looking at them we really need to work on how these queries are being written. If we still want to work from this, let's please send along an initial PR that includes only present tense forms, and we can see that the we get back the following:

• One unique row per Wikidata item
• That the query actually finishes
• The the query checks do pass (we can check this in the PR)
• That there are no extra comments in the query as the labels of the returned forms should convey exactly what's being returned :)

Please use check_query_forms.py to guide you in the query writing process 😊

[KesharwaniArpita]

Sorry for needing to close the PRs, but in looking at them we really need to work on how these queries are being written.

All cool @andrewtavis, I actually want to complete this to some extent extent given that I have put lot of time and effort in it.

One unique row per Wikidata item
That the query actually finishes

Well I did make sure of these two points.

The the query checks do pass (we can check this in the PR)
That there are no extra comments in the query as the labels of the returned forms should convey exactly what's being returned :)

How about I refine the query according to these two points and submit a new PR? I already have the present tense completed.

[andrewtavis]

This is fine, @KesharwaniArpita, but let's please work from the current version of main so that the new checks can run on the queries :)

[Collins-Webdev]

Hello @KesharwaniArpita and @andrewtavis 👋🏼,

Thank you so much for your help with my problematic PRs. What I ended up doing was syncing my fork with the main Scribe-Data code and then pulling the updated code to my local environment. After that, I simply created a new branch.

[KesharwaniArpita]

Great @Collins-Webdev