(Por) add dictionary

[odanoburu]

• use DictPor and IrregPor from RGL for bootstrapping
• bootstrapping code is in my fork, branch add-por, directory
  translator/bootstrap

[krangelov]

The same thing here! Dictionary*.gf is a dead end. This repository should really be marked as DEPRECATED!

…

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 14:44, bruno cuconato ***@***.***> wrote: - use DictPor and IrregPor from RGL for bootstrapping - bootstrapping code is in my fork, branch add-por, directory translator/bootstrap ------------------------------ You can view, comment on, or merge this pull request online at: #7 Commit Summary - (Por) add dictionary File Changes - *A* translator/DictionaryPor.gf <https://github.com/GrammaticalFramework/wide-coverage/pull/7/files#diff-0> (68111) Patch Links: - https://github.com/GrammaticalFramework/wide-coverage/pull/7.patch - https://github.com/GrammaticalFramework/wide-coverage/pull/7.diff — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATBZZJ5Ghj4KwF-h9hBn25EsSexUZj9Cks5vNWhAgaJpZM4a7n23> .

[odanoburu]

I've built DictPor.gf using morphological resources, and it's easier to add DictionaryPor.gf and then use the migrate.hs script to create WordNetPor.gf (which is what I'm doing right now)

I'm just adding it here so it is archived somewhere!

[krangelov]

In this way you will loose all sense distinctions and they are really important. This is the main problem for this dictionaries.

…

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 15:20, bruno cuconato ***@***.***> wrote: I've built DictPor.gf using morphological resources, and it's easier to add DictionaryPor.gf and then use the migrate.hs script to create WordNetPor.gf (which is what I'm doing right now) I'm just adding it here so it is archived somewhere! — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATBZZKzLyRi9baGx4Ry9cNQKOs3CGglOks5vNXCUgaJpZM4a7n23> .

[odanoburu]

oh ok.. I thought the migrate script took care of this, but now that I think of it that's not really possible to do for all languages with only one mapping file. I'll rebuild WordNetPor using DictPor directly then..

[krangelov]

If you don't mind waiting until next week, I would like trying something new this time. Morphology is one of the problems with WordNetPor but not the only one. I can see that the script that I sent you the first time doesn't do the right thing in many cases. I want to check that again and do some changes: 1. The old script relies on data from Open Multilingual WordNet but now we already have much better multilingual data for English, Swedish and Bulgarian in GF itself. The script should use those instead. 2. In PanLex there are a lot of translation dictionaries for Por-Swe and Por-Eng. I want to make use of those when deciding which Portuguese word is the best mach for a given abstract syntax. I don't know if those dictionaries are for Brasilian or for European Portuguese but I hope that this doesn't matter much.

…

On Thu, 14 Feb 2019 at 15:36, bruno cuconato ***@***.***> wrote: oh ok.. I thought the migrate script took care of this, but now that I think of it that's not really possible to do for all languages with only one mapping file. I'll rebuild WordNetPor using DictPor directly then.. — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#7 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ATBZZJsYQUItUfgQanRdSfl-qq7ja65Eks5vNXR0gaJpZM4a7n23> .

[odanoburu]

no problem, I can wait. this approach seems interesting!