Glossary plural terms

[Glassboy]

A more advanced implementation would allow the user to specify a (regular expression) pattern.

That's an interesting idea.  By extension it would be useful to be able to import a specific glossary and an accompanying regex set.  I'm thinking for example of frameworks like FIBO.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

A more advanced implementation would allow the user to specify a (regular expression) pattern.

That's an interesting idea.  By extension, it would be useful to be able to import a specific glossary and an accompanying regex set.  I'm thinking for example of frameworks like FIBO.

How would the RegEx be used?  I fear this might be a chimaera.  I can see RegExs populating a trial set of variants, but then - especially for a language like English - the output would need to be adjusted for the "Exceptions that prove the rule".  The adjusted output is what would be passed to EA.

Paolo

[Glassboy]

How would the RegEx be used?  I fear this might be a chimaera.  I can see RegExs populating a trial set of variants, but then - especially for a language like English - the output would need to be adjusted for the "Exceptions that prove the rule".  The adjusted output is what would be passed to EA.

Wouldn't an exception that proves the rule simply be just a missing definition?  Wouldn't having a missing definition be a case of ambiguity that you would want to fix rather than hide?

[Paolo F Cantoni]

How would the RegEx be used?  I fear this might be a chimaera.  I can see RegExs populating a trial set of variants, but then - especially for a language like English - the output would need to be adjusted for the "Exceptions that prove the rule".  The adjusted output is what would be passed to EA.

Wouldn't an exception that proves the rule simply be just a missing definition?  Wouldn't having a missing definition be a case of ambiguity that you would want to fix rather than hide?

Now you've lost me (probably my bad).  Can you specify how exactly the RegEx would be used?  I didn't think it would be for the definitions.

Paolo

[michielper]

And, another question, would it be possible to realise this in an add-in? That is, does EA call an overloadable function before a glossary look up and before highlighting terms?

Unfortunately not. There are callbacks which can catch the creation / deletion of a glossary term, but the lookup and highlighting are EA-internal.

/Uffe

Allright, but the Paolo idea should then certainly be implemented by Sparx!

[Glassboy]

Now you've lost me (probably my bad).  Can you specify how exactly the RegEx would be used?  I didn't think it would be for the definitions.

Well I assumed that something like

Code: [Select]

voice|voice|vox|voces
would be used to link to an entry voice for the word, its plural and any synonyms.

By an exception that proves the rule I assumed you meant something like your glossary doesn't not define "voice" as "a particular opinion" in addition to its other meanings.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

Now you've lost me (probably my bad).  Can you specify how exactly the RegEx would be used?  I didn't think it would be for the definitions.

Well I assumed that something like

Code: [Select]

voice|voice|vox|voces
would be used to link to an entry voice for the word, its plural and any synonyms.

By an exception that proves the rule I assumed you meant something like your glossary doesn't define "voice" as "a particular opinion" in addition to its other meanings.

No, I meant that each set of variants couldn't be managed by a RegEx.  The problem of multiple meanings for the same word is a different one.

As I said, one can certainly use RegExs to start the process, but they aren't enough.

Paolo

[Glassboy]

No, I meant that each set of variants couldn't be managed by a RegEx.  The problem of multiple meanings for the same word is a different one.
As I said, one can certainly use REgExs to start the process, but they aren't enough.

I went back and read your definition of variants and I'm struggling.  But then again I'm not suggesting regex is the whole suggestion.

I guess we need a Venn diagram or something.

[Eve]

The best way EA could handle this in the future is to model the glossary using an ontology definition profile. EA could then query the model itself for the glossary terms to highlight and the definitions to display.

[Paolo F Cantoni]

The best way EA could handle this in the future is to model the glossary using an ontology definition profile. EA could then query the model itself for the glossary terms to highlight and the definitions to display.

+100

But first, ask us what we think we might need.  Or even how we envision the solution.

FWIW, as you know, I've had nearly a decade of creating and using ontological models in Sparx EA.  I'm sure there are other users with similar experience and we could "Crowdsource" the requirements / envisioned solution.  I say envisioned because Sparx is the owner of the actual solution, but in communicating our thoughts, the specification of an envisioned solution may help clarify matters.

Paolo

[qwerty]

Honestly, that's exactly what I do in projects. The gimmick with the highligh does not work, but having a working and extendable glossary is what brings the real value. Would be nice to have the highlighting, but then again you get weird results since all those algorithms do a pure string check which fails anyway in certain cases (you find that in some web pages where strings get highlighted from a glossary). For example if you have acronyms that resemble natural words.

q.