Hi Marcin,
> Thomas Lange - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg pisze: >> Hi, >> >> I just found this in the English-US thesaurus: >> dark has the antonym light, but light has the antonym heavy >> Well, of course it isn't wrong. But maybe it is not what one would >> expect either. >> Thus, why is it this way? Does the thesaurus only support one antonym >> per word? Or is it that dark was just not added as an additional antonym >> for light? > > It seems the thesaurus by default doesn't support symmetric relations - > so you need add antonyms to both words manually to have a symmetric > relation. But this is quite wrong: even though hypernymy is not > symmetric, it should be converted into hyponymy automatically. So > probably all relations should be symmetric in the thesaurus to save disk > space. > > Or am I completely confused? At least for antonyms thats what I would expect thats why I asked if there is a reason for it not being that way. If it is about antonyms I would even use a tool to enforce this. But I'm not sure if that is the way to handle the 'normal' entries of the thesaurus. It sounds normal to expect it for those as well, but I can't proof that there won't be some good and reasonable exceptions from that rule. Sometimes the relations to a specific synonym is somewhat weak (yes it is there but is not necessarily what may come to mind), whereas I consider a antonym relation as strong if it is set. And the very meaning of antonym implies that it is (at least) a two word relation, and that relation should be reflected in all related entries. Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lingucomponent.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lingucomponent.openoffice.org
