G'day,

I think it would be good to add pronunciation to examples, and maybe also to definitions. Does anyone have any reason not to?

I think it would be good to add pronunciation to examples, and maybe also to definitions.

Sorry, but what benefit does it provide? We already have pronunciations of the words. It sounds like a lot of data work, storage space, and coding to support something without a use case (that I'm aware of).

Does anyone have any reason not to?

YAGNI

More seriously, I think framing should be why we do need it, and not why we don't.

@fcbond Please create an issue to discuss this rather than adding it on to the release PR.

OK, I started a discussion here #93. If people are in favor, I would like to include it in 1.4, ...

I'm going to assume that everything except the expanded pronunciations (which is still in discussion, not even a PR) will be included in 1.4 and prepare Wn and omw-data accordingly. That is, I will put preliminary support for dumping WN-LMF 1.4 XML files into Wn so that I can prepare OMW 2.0. (It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation in that I want to release Wn 1.0 with OMW 2.0 in the index, but omw-data requires the features in Wn 1.0 to build the data)

I'm going to assume that everything except the expanded pronunciations (which is still in discussion, not even a PR) will be included in 1.4 and prepare Wn and omw-data accordingly. That is, I will put preliminary support for dumping WN-LMF 1.4 XML files into Wn so that I can prepare OMW 2.0. (It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg situation in that I want to release Wn 1.0 with OMW 2.0 in the index, but omw-data requires the features in Wn 1.0 to build the data)

Yes, that would be my assumption, as that issue seems non-trivial to progress. Maybe @fcbond can comment?

@fcbond any comments?

Hi, yes, please let's leave potentially extending the coverage of pronunciation to another day, and go ahead with the release.

Thanks for responding, Francis.

@jmccrae are there any outstanding issues/conversations or can we declare 1.4 ready?

No I think this is good. I will merge the other PRs into this branch and validate

@goodmami @fcbond, I think we are ready to merge, any final checks you want to do?

I validated Wn's test files with the 1.4 schema and ran into an issue which is not directly related to the changes for this release: there is an undocumented limitation that a resource can only refer to an external entity (through <Requires> or <Extends>) once. This has been the case since WN-LMF 1.1. I created #94 for this.

Otherwise the DTD works for me and the documentation looks good aside from some minor stylistic issues like missing punctuation. E.g.:

The <Tag> element has a category attribute which indicates the type of grammatical property, and the value is the text of the tag

(I expected a full stop or a colon at the end of the sentence above)