El dt 21 de 12 de 2010 a les 13:04 +0100, en/na Kevin Brubeck Unhammer va escriure: > Francis Tyers <fty...@prompsit.com> writes: > > > Hi! > > > > The problem with this is that there are so many different metadix > > formats that it will be impossible to come up with one that covers them > > all. For example if I remember correctly how the "alt" works is > > different in es-pt and in oc-es. I think it was decided that it was > > desirable to have them functioning differently, or at least would > > require substantial changes in either language pair to get a unified > > format -- changes that without some push (and let's face it, cash) are > > not going to get made. > > > > On the other hand, implementing compound words gives us the chance to > > strike while the iron is hot! We can make a (fairly innocuous change -- > > any language pair that does not have compounding will be unaffected) > > before getting a plethora of different options and thus avoiding the > > metadix problem for another set of issues. > > > > Btw, thinking about metadix I have some probably unpopular ideas, > > thatwould preclude any standardisation. I think that maybe we should not > > have one format, but rather many _codified_ formats depending on the > > language(group). For example how to include a verb would be different in > > Tajik and Dutch, because different things are important. Unnecessary > > examples: > > > > <e lm="aanzitten"><par n="z/itten__vblex" prefix="aan" > > pp="aangezeten"/></e> > > > > Giving: > > > > <e lm="aanzitten"><i>aanz</i><par n="aanz/itten__vblex_sep"/></e> > > <e lm="aanzitten"><p><l>z</l><r>aanz</r></p><par > > n="z/itten#_aan__vblex_sep"/><p><l><b/>aan</l><r></r></p></e> > > <e lm="aanzitten"><p><l>aangezeten</l><r>aanzitten</r></p><par > > n="gesproken__vblex_sep"/></e> > > > > Or in Tajik: > > > > <e lm="харидан"><par n="кард/ан__vblex" stem1="харид" stem2="хар"/></e> > > In the unification proposal from > > http://wiki.apertium.org/wiki/Unification_of_metadix_and_parametrized_dictionaries#A_unifying_proposal > > the calls would look like > > <e lm="aanzitten"><par n="z/itten__vblex" prms="prefix='aan' > pp='aangezeten'"/></e> > > and > > <e lm="харидан"><par n="кард/ан__vblex" prms="stem1='харид' stem2='хар'"/></e> > > > Are there good reasons not to go with that kind of syntax?
The problem is that what happens after that would be different depending on the language pair. I think one of the points of the unification proposal was to have a single xsl file to do the transformations(?) Where in this case it would be two. Fran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Lotusphere 2011 Register now for Lotusphere 2011 and learn how to connect the dots, take your collaborative environment to the next level, and enter the era of Social Business. http://p.sf.net/sfu/lotusphere-d2d _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
