Inconsistencies for Meronymy/Holonymy about gwadoc HOT 3 OPEN

Thanks for the detailed report! We recently concluded a documentation push where we, among other things, tried to standardize the A/B vs X/Y things, but it seems like we've missed some. Similarly, we had issues with the description being the reverse of what they should be. It seems there is still a lot of work to do.

from gwadoc.

NP!

If I may make one suggestion it would be to always have a representation of the actual directionality somewhere in the entry, i.e.

A -> B

(... or whatever triple representation you favour) which makes it clear which part A is referring to and which part B is referring to.

Then you can flip this relationship for the entry describing the reverse relationship:

B -> A

and reuse the entity names so they still reflect the same entity types, that is: use them as backreferences. This would also allow you to reuse many of the written descriptions for the reverse relationships.

However, without a consistent codification of the relationships inside the entries, the descriptions are quite useless and it actually becomes very hard to spot the errors.

from gwadoc.

That's a good idea. Sometimes the directionality is confusing even when the wording is correct.

from gwadoc.