Clarify the description of underspecified relations

[goodmami]

Some underspecified relations, such as constitutive, are not used directly. Others, such as meronym may be (I'm not really sure) but are usually given by subtypes (mero_location, mero_substance, etc.). Providing examples for things like meronym that are actually subtypes would be confusing, so these need to be more fully specified. Also the comment at the bottom of, e.g., meronym, is inaccurate:

This is an unspecified relation that covers all the relations below. This can be computed automatically, it shouldn't be a special relation.

First, I think it's "underspecified" rather than "unspecified", and second "all the relations below" is not right because there is no clear list or hierarchy, so a reader might think it includes the rest of the relations on the page. The final sentence isn't clear, either. How about:

"This is an underspecified relation that covers Location Meronym, Member Meronym, Part Meronym, Portion Meronym, and Substance Meronym. As such, it is not specified as a relation directly by wordnets, but a wordnet application may employ it as a general relation covering all its subtypes."

(and so on for other underspecified relations)

[fcbond]

Hi, good idea. I think meronym was used originally, and then was split, so there may be wordnets that use it. But in general it is not used.

…

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:55 AM Michael Wayne Goodman < ***@***.***> wrote: Some underspecified relations, such as constitutive, are not used directly. Others, such as meronym may be (I'm not really sure) but are usually given by subtypes (mero_location, mero_substance, etc.). Providing examples for things like meronym that are actually subtypes would be confusing, so these need to be more fully specified. Also the comment at the bottom of, e.g., meronym, is inaccurate: This is an unspecified relation that covers all the relations below. This can be computed automatically, it shouldn't be a special relation. First, I think it's "underspecified" rather than "unspecified", and second "all the relations below" is not right because there is no clear list or hierarchy, so a reader might think it includes the rest of the relations on the page. The final sentence isn't clear, either. How about: "This is an underspecified relation that covers Location Meronym, Member Meronym, Part Meronym, Portion Meronym, and Substance Meronym. As such, it is not specified as a relation directly by wordnets, but a wordnet application may employ it as a general relation covering all its subtypes." (and so on for other underspecified relations) — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#40>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIPZRVPWB24G2VJZUJUIDTSJERRPANCNFSM4SEC6VGA> .

-- Francis Bond <http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/> Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies Nanyang Technological University

[goodmami]

Yes, I think it's good to leave open that possibility in the prose, but in any case the English examples do not make sense if they just say "X is a meronym of Y", so I've already changed it to "X is a part-meronym of Y" (or substance, member, etc.) in the GSOD branch, but it's not yet merged to the master branch.

See: 1619432

edit: you might note that I did not change "B has (relation) A" to "A is a (relation) of B", but that's not out of preference. I was just fixing the immediate problem.

[fcbond]

@gconnect please check all the underspecified relations.

[gconnect]

Alright. I will check them.

…

On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:48 PM Francis Bond ***@***.***> wrote: @gconnect <https://github.com/gconnect> please check all the underspecified relations. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#40 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFPXA4GW6Y3VB36XKO4MQ53SOAJ3JANCNFSM4SEC6VGA> .

[gconnect]

I think this has been done