Talk:Metadix - Revision history

Unhammer: /* Identical attributes invalid? */

2016-04-25T08:20:33Z

Identical attributes invalid?

Unhammer: /* Kurdish verb example */

2016-04-25T08:20:07Z

Kurdish verb example

Unhammer: /* Kurdish verb example */

2016-04-25T08:19:44Z

Kurdish verb example

Unhammer at 08:19, 25 April 2016

2016-04-25T08:19:32Z

Unhammer at 08:18, 25 April 2016

2016-04-25T08:18:42Z

Jimregan: an example of Sergio's proposed extended metadix (as far as I understood it)

2009-11-26T23:30:07Z

an example of Sergio's proposed extended metadix (as far as I understood it)

New page

At the Apertium EGM at FreeRBMT, Sergio proposed to integrate an enhanced version of metadix into the compiler; as I understood it, the new syntax will look similar to this:

<pre>
<par n="v/[a][ter]__n">
<e>

<l><prm n="1"/><prm n="3"/></l>
<r><prm n="1"/><prm n="3"/><s n="n"/><s n="sg"/><s n="nom"/></r>

</e>
<e>

<l><prm n="2"/><prm n="3"/></l>
<r><prm n="1"/><prm n="3"/><s n="n"/><s n="pl"/><s n="nom"/></r>

</e>
<e>

<l><prm n="1"/><prm n="3"/>s</l>
<r><prm n="1"/><prm n="3"/><s n="n"/><s n="sg"/><s n="gen"/></r>

</e>
<e>

<l><prm n="2"/><prm n="3"/>n</l>
<r><prm n="1"/><prm n="3"/><s n="n"/><s n="sg"/><s n="dat"/></r>

</e>
</pardef>

<e lm="vater">v<par n="v/[a][ter]__n" prm="a" prm="ä" prm="ter"/></e>
</pre>

That is; <prm> elements will be numbered (so they may be freely placed anywhere within the pardef), while prm attributes will be specified with an implicit order; the above paradigm with the specified parameters will expand to this:

<pre>
<par n="v/[a][ter]__n">
<e>

<l>ater</l>
<r>ater<s n="n"/><s n="sg"/><s n="nom"/></r>

</e>
<e>

<l>äter</l>
<r>ater<s n="n"/><s n="pl"/><s n="nom"/></r>

</e>
<e>

<l>aters</l>
<r>ater<s n="n"/><s n="sg"/><s n="gen"/></r>

</e>
<e>

<l>ätern</l>
<r>ater<s n="n"/><s n="sg"/><s n="dat"/></r>

</e>
</pardef>
</pre>

@@ Line 110: / Line 110: @@
 <pre>
+    <e lm="gotin"><par n="[got]in_di[bej]__vblex_tv"><prm="got"/><prm="bej"/></par></e>
     <e lm="parastin"><par n="[got]in_di[bej]__vblex_tv"><prm="parast"/><prm="parêz"/></par></e>
 </pre>

@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 The above could instead be as simple as
 <pre>
+    <e lm="gotin"><par n="[got]in_di[bej]__vblex_tv" prm="got" prm="bej"/></e>
     <e lm="parastin"><par n="[got]in_di[bej]__vblex_tv" prm="parast" prm="parêz"/></e>
 </pre>

@@ Line 66: / Line 66: @@
 ===Kurdish verb example===
-This'd be great to have for e.g. Kurdish, where we have e.g.
+This'd be great to have for Kurdish, where we have
 <pre>
     <!-- gotin; got; bej -->

@@ Line 65: / Line 65: @@
+===Kurdish verb example===
+This'd be great to have for e.g. Kurdish, where we have e.g.
+<pre>
+    <!-- gotin; got; bej -->
+    <e lm="gotin"><p><l>got</l><r>gotin</r></p><par n="kir/__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="gotin"><p><l>dibej</l><r>gotin</r></p><par n="dik/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="gotin"><p><l>bibej</l><r>gotin</r></p><par n="bik/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="gotin"><p><l>negot</l><r>gotin</r></p><par n="nekir/__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="gotin"><p><l>nabej</l><r>gotin</r></p><par n="nak/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="gotin"><p><l>nebej</l><r>gotin</r></p><par n="nek/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <!-- parastin; ; parast; parêz -->
-This'd be great to have for e.g. Kurdish, where we have e..g
-<pre>      <!-- parastin; ; parast; parêz -->
     <e lm="parastin"><p><l>parast</l><r>parastin</r></p><par n="kir/__vblex_tv"/></e>
     <e lm="parastin"><p><l>diparêz</l><r>parastin</r></p><par n="dik/e__vblex_tv"/></e>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+==Proposal for several prm's==
 At the Apertium EGM at FreeRBMT, Sergio proposed to integrate an enhanced version of metadix into the compiler; as I understood it, the new syntax will look similar to this:
@@ Line 62: / Line 63: @@
   </pardef>
 </pre>
+This'd be great to have for e.g. Kurdish, where we have e..g
+<pre>      <!-- parastin; ; parast; parêz -->
+    <e lm="parastin"><p><l>parast</l><r>parastin</r></p><par n="kir/__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="parastin"><p><l>diparêz</l><r>parastin</r></p><par n="dik/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="parastin"><p><l>biparêz</l><r>parastin</r></p><par n="bik/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="parastin"><p><l>neparast</l><r>parastin</r></p><par n="nekir/__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="parastin"><p><l>naparêz</l><r>parastin</r></p><par n="nak/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e lm="parastin"><p><l>neparêz</l><r>parastin</r></p><par n="nek/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+</pre>
+The above could instead be as simple as
+<pre>
+    <e lm="parastin"><par n="[got]in_di[bej]__vblex_tv" prm="parast" prm="parêz"/></e>
+</pre>
+where the pardef has
+<pre>
+  <pardef n="[got]in_di[bej]__vblex_tv" nprm="2"/>
+    <e><p><l><prm n="1"/></l><r><prm n="1"/>in</r></p><par n="kir/__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e><p><l>di<prm n="2"/></l><r><prm n="1"/>in</r></p><par n="dik/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e><p><l>bi<prm n="2"/></l><r><prm n="1"/>in</r></p><par n="bik/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e><p><l>ne<prm n="1"/></l><r><prm n="1"/>in</r></p><par n="nekir/__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e><p><l>na<prm n="2"/></l><r><prm n="1"/>in</r></p><par n="nak/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+    <e><p><l>ne<prm n="2"/></l><r><prm n="1"/>in</r></p><par n="nek/e__vblex_tv"/></e>
+  </pardef>
+</pre>
+===Identical attributes invalid?===
+To be valid XML, wouldn't it have to be prm1="foo", prm2="bar" etc?
+(We could simply put prm's up to some high-enough-but-finite number in the DTD.)
+The alternative, more XML-like, would be to allow child elements to the par, ie.
+<pre>
+    <e lm="parastin"><par n="[got]in_di[bej]__vblex_tv"><prm="parast"/><prm="parêz"/></par></e>
+</pre>
+– that might actually be simpler all round?