On Mon, 25 May 2020 at 12:29, Xavi Ivars <xavi.iv...@gmail.com> wrote:
> * In the trimming disadvantages number 1, we're stating that we're OK > having crappy monodixes because we *fix* that later on with trimming. I'm > sure that's where we are now, but as a project that focuses a lot on > provided free (as in speech) language resources that are later used for > many other use cases, I don't feel comfortable with that status. I think we > should aim to have as correct as possible dictionaries. And if we did that, > disadvantage number 1 would be smaller (even if not disappearing > completely). > This is critically important, in my opinion. Languages should be stand-alone and widely usable for many purposes. As I wrote on IRC, this a luxury problem. If the source analysis is bad, bloody well fix it so that all pairs, spell checker, and corpus work can take advantage. Don't let it remain a task for the pairs. The fact that trimming via bidix and target monodix is currently needed is a historical accident. It should not be something developers rely on going forward, and especially not for new pairs. -- Tino Didriksen
_______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
