Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Create <IGNORE> class #1235

Closed
mathildavz opened this issue Oct 4, 2022 · 8 comments
Closed

Create <IGNORE> class #1235

mathildavz opened this issue Oct 4, 2022 · 8 comments
Assignees
Milestone

Comments

@mathildavz
Copy link
Collaborator

As discussed in PR #1232, it might be useful to have a way to EXCLUDE mappings, or refuse FOREVER to map, when things are unclear. @LinguList suggested that one could map to a new class IGNORE or similar in these cases, and we would then not look at the cases again when doing our check for left-over-mappings.

@LinguList
Copy link
Contributor

@xrotwang, do you think this is a good idea? The advantage is that we can re-map more quickly and don't have to discuss accidentally cases again, which we solved a couple of years ago in discussions. Something like an authoritative "don't map this for the next couple of years".

@xrotwang
Copy link
Contributor

xrotwang commented Oct 6, 2022

I think this could be an option once we move to Concepticon 3.0 - when public data access should go through a Concepticon CLDF dataset, which will not include such pseudo conceptsets.

But I think it would be nice if assigning a concept to the "IGNORE" conceptset always means adding a summary of the relevant discussion as comment.

@xrotwang xrotwang added this to the 3.0 milestone Oct 6, 2022
@xrotwang xrotwang self-assigned this Oct 6, 2022
@LinguList
Copy link
Contributor

So we could do the following:

  1. make a list of conceptlist-concept-IDs with the ID and the comment, maybe calling this file ignore.tsv
  2. we insert the ID and the discussion result there

By now, this means we don't touch the list, we just have this information elsewhere without disturbing the evaluation workflow. But later, we could integrate it, e.g., into the command that fishes for unmapped concepts, that it reads the file before?

@xrotwang
Copy link
Contributor

xrotwang commented Oct 6, 2022

Yes, that would be a good way to start.

@LinguList
Copy link
Contributor

@mathildavz do you want to set this up or do you prefer me or @AnnikaTjuka to do it?

@xrotwang
Copy link
Contributor

xrotwang commented Oct 11, 2022 via email

@LinguList
Copy link
Contributor

LinguList commented Oct 11, 2022 via email

@AnnikaTjuka
Copy link
Collaborator

AnnikaTjuka commented Oct 21, 2022

Since the file was added in a recent PR (#1240), I'll close the issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants