`causes` and `is_caused_by` have the same the descriptions as `involved_result` and `result`

[simongray]

On the schemas page, the descriptions for both pairs are exactly the same:

A relation between two concepts where concept B comes into existence as a result of concept A.
A relation between two concepts where concept A comes into existence as a result of concept B.

Yet in the the more extensive docs the entries for causes, is_caused_by, involved_result, and result do seem to have semantically distinguishable (but similar) meanings.

I guess the descriptions for causes and is_caused_by are the most "wrong" on the schemas page as they differ more significantly from the descriptions in the GWA docs.

[fcbond]

Thanks for pointing this out.

I think causes is normally a relation between verbs (e.g. kill and die), while result is normally between a verb and a noun (e.g. crystalize and crystal). The schema page should be updated to reflect this. I must admit that I am struggling to come up with a definition for cause that does not actually use cause in it, ... . Any ideas?

[arademaker]

Not sure if I understood,

1. causes is defined as "Concept A is an entity that produces an effect or is responsible for events or results of Concept B." in https://globalwordnet.github.io/gwadoc/#causes and
2. is_caused_by as "X comes about because of Y" in https://globalwordnet.github.io/gwadoc/#is_caused_by.

What GWA docs @simongray is talking about? Unfortunately, the definitions in the https://globalwordnet.github.io/schemas/ are different. So it is all not 100% consistent.

1. causes: A relation between two concepts where concept B comes into existence as a result of concept A.
2. is_caused_by: A relation between two concepts where concept A comes into existence as a result of concept B.

Anyway, none of them use the word cause... So I didn't understand Francis' answer.

[arademaker]

We need a meta-wordnet, so we can precisely define the relations and terms used by other wordnets!

[goodmami]

What GWA docs @simongray is talking about?

Probably the ones that were linked? https://globalwordnet.github.io/gwadoc/

These docs (gwadoc) started as an inventory of relations and their descriptions, but we hope to expand it to cover more topics. The docs are still incomplete and, in some cases, incorrect (often copy-paste errors), so we appreciate any corrections.

[arademaker]

Yes, I was double-checking because the description he provided didn't match the descriptions in the https://globalwordnet.github.io/gwadoc/. Moreover, he mentioned schemas page.. So it can be about https://globalwordnet.github.io/schemas/.

[simongray]

The schemas page is obviously the one that is linked twice in this repository (the schemas repository) which I'm fairly sure also happens to contain the HTML behind that page 😉 making the issue here was deliberate as I'm fairly sure the necessary commit(s) needs to be made here too.

[goodmami]

@simongray it wasn't clear from your wording, but the gwadoc repository is the source for the Open Wordnet Documentation website, while this schemas repository is the source for the Global Wordnet Formats website. The former is meant to be documentation for wordnet contents while the latter is for the data formats used to encode those contents.

There is a lot over overlap in the people who work on those projects, and we could probably do better about using consistent descriptions.

[simongray]

I'll try to be more explicit in any future issues or possibly PRs.

[goodmami]

I'll try to be more explicit in any future issues or possibly PRs.

No trouble at all. The issues you have raised have been helpful, and I am happy to get more of them!