On Mar 2, 2012, at 10:04 AM, Amanda Vizedom wrote:
For this kind of usage, better accuracy and intuitiveness come from calling a concept ont1:0395 (some existing label), and deciding based on meaning whether it should also have labels ("gruefulit", sysA) or ("gruefulit", sysB) or neither.
Surely there's a rollicking good story behind "gruefulit"?
I think I agree with this approach... are you saying that by some process gruefulit A & B are presented/made known to a human—I seriously doubt if I'd trust an automated machine translation process—and the human decides equivalence or not?
Do I grok that correctly?