El dv 23 de 03 de 2012 a les 10:27 +0100, en/na Jacob Nordfalk va escriure: > > > 2012/3/23 Francis Tyers <[email protected]> > El dj 22 de 03 de 2012 a les 20:33 -0400, en/na Aaron Rubin va > escriure: > > Thanks for the suggestions, everyone! This is my tentative > schedule, > > as of now: > > > > Weeks 1-7, .dix files: > > Week 1: Redundant Entry Finder > > Week 2: Testing Full Entries in Lemmas where Part of the > Lemma is > > Specified by the Pardef > > Week 3: Testing Misspelled Tags and Pardefs > > Week 4: Testing Incompatible Tags > > Week 5: Testing Tag Missing on One Side of Translation > Equivalents > > Week 6: Testing Missing Gender on Gendered Languages > > Week 7: Bundling all of these features together in one > program; > > testing. > > Weeks 8-10, Transfer rules: > > Week 8: Checking inappropriate uses of <equal>, > <begins-with>, > > <ends-with>, and <let> in transfer rules. Perhaps contains > substring > > (<cmp substr>) and <in> as well? I'm having a bit of trouble > figuring > > out where and why those two are used.. if someone could > point me to a > > tutorial page with an illustrative example, I'd appreciate > it. The > > same for <begins-with> and <ends-with>, for that matter. > > Week 9: Checking for cases where the user asks for > nonexistent tags. > > Week 10: Checking for incorrect number of arguments in calls > to macro > > (Weeks 9 and 10 will probably take less than a week, but > Week 8's task > > might be intricate enough to compensate) > > Week 11-12: Bundling all features together into one program. > Possibly > > combining with .dix files checker, with a feature to check > which type > > of file is being input. Writing and running tests (adding > deliberate > > errors to sample .dix and transfer rules files to see > whether the > > program catches them). Writing documentation to ensure that > code is > > maintainable. > > > It seems that the plan is time skewed in favour of .dix files > (imho the > easier task). If anything I would say that 7 weeks on transfer > and 2 > weeks on dictionaries seems more sensible. > > I think that it might be a good idea to go through the > language pair > HOWTO, and see what kind of errors/pitfalls you come across > that aren't > handled by the validation programs. > > > I'd also suggest that you set time aside to get into the problem > domain if you haven't already done so: > > > 1) work a little on a pair > 2) interview/observe someone who has just started working on a pair > > > Writing a system which is supposed to help others, especially > beginners, will be better written by someone who has experienced the > obstacles themselves.
Excellent advice! Fran ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF email is sponsosred by: Try Windows Azure free for 90 days Click Here http://p.sf.net/sfu/sfd2d-msazure _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
