Clarify the description of underspecified relations about gwadoc HOT 5 OPEN

On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 9:55 AM Michael Wayne Goodman < ***@***.***> wrote: Some underspecified relations, such as constitutive, are not used directly. Others, such as meronym may be (I'm not really sure) but are usually given by subtypes (mero_location, mero_substance, etc.). Providing examples for things like meronym that are actually subtypes would be confusing, so these need to be more fully specified. Also the comment at the bottom of, e.g., meronym, is inaccurate: This is an unspecified relation that covers all the relations below. This can be computed automatically, it shouldn't be a special relation. First, I think it's "underspecified" rather than "unspecified", and second "all the relations below" is not right because there is no clear list or hierarchy, so a reader might think it includes the rest of the relations on the page. The final sentence isn't clear, either. How about: "This is an underspecified relation that covers Location Meronym, Member Meronym, Part Meronym, Portion Meronym, and Substance Meronym. As such, it is not specified as a relation directly by wordnets, but a wordnet application may employ it as a general relation covering all its subtypes." (and so on for other underspecified relations) — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#40>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIPZRVPWB24G2VJZUJUIDTSJERRPANCNFSM4SEC6VGA> .

On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 3:48 PM Francis Bond ***@***.***> wrote: @gconnect <https://github.com/gconnect> please check all the underspecified relations. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#40 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFPXA4GW6Y3VB36XKO4MQ53SOAJ3JANCNFSM4SEC6VGA> .