Closed VisLab closed 1 month ago
Thank you for the review.
I already pushed some fixes to the fork
Yes, it would be good to discuss the relation with value. For the language schema it always indicated the degree of relatedness. Relatedness itself can also mean a distance (because this is how standardized values are often represented). For orthographic distance, I would imagine something like: Sensory-event, Visual-presentation, (Target, Word, Label/kitten, (Levenshtein-distance-to/3, (Priming, Word, Label/sitting))), for a full event tag. But I was thinking for the description it might make sense to just give an example of the description. So for orthographic distance: for example the word sitting is removed in orthographic or written form from the word kitten (by some measure). What do you think?
I have added periods to all descriptions now.
I think we should allow values in the Relations. We'll have to make sure there are no issues with validation but I don't think there should be.
PR lang #232 addressed these issues.
Here are comments/suggestions on the prerelease:
Phonological-Levenshtein-distance-to
.Analytic-language-type
description.Orthographic-distance-to
?Relation
:Linguistic-relation
.Phonological-distance-to
necessary as it can't take a value?We should discuss how to do the distance relationships under
Relation
. The items underRelation
are of the form (A, (Op, B)). I think having things that take value is okay --- we just hadn't thought of it yet. It would be helpful to expand the description of these slightly with an example.Minor editing: Some descriptions end in period and some do not --- suggest that they all end in period.