Talk:Meta-model (NLP)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I am curious as to whether it would be a better idea to label "meta-model" explicitly as described in Structures one with a hyphen. This seems consistant with the originators representation. jVirus 06:09, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I've seen meta-model and Meta Model but not metamodel. The first is probably prefereable. For consistency use whatever convention has been adopted on the NLP article. flavius 11:38, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

"metamodel" is used more and more as a standard orthograph in scientific publications. This is consistent with the usage of the prefix "meta" in several different domains like metaphysics, etc. Casual, O9:28, 6 May 2006

Hi y'all...it seems like you flip back and forth between "metamodel" and "meta-model" a bit too much in this article. I like the beginning reference to the fact that it can be more than one way, but after that, you might want to consider tightening things up by being more consistent when using the term throughout the paper. Kukini 03:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I am planning on cleaning that up. I just haven't gotten around to it yet :) I am still reviewing source material. jVirus 08:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

How about adding a header explaining that the terms are used interchangably and then we can standardise once there is consensus on the correct term, we can standardise with that? eg: "The terms meta-model, Meta Model and metamodel are used interchangably"

Also it seems kind of a bit excessive to have the cleanup required tag for only the above issue? The only thing I can see the page missing is a couple of citations, as well as the use of interchangable terminology.. Just my thoughts.. --Jaybest 19:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] OMG metamodels

Thumbs-up to whoever came up with this section heading ;P —porges_(talk) 21:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the OMG stuff to the main meta model page and added disambiguation link to the top of the page. ---=-C-=- 23:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I am new to wikipedia, but seems to me that there is here a problem. Not all metamodels are NLP metamodels. We need a generic entry for "Metamodel", but I do not know how to proceed on this. The present situation is not satisfactory because many places point to "Metamodel" and do not mean "NLP metamodels". Any suggestion appreciated.Casual, O9:53, 6 May 2006

More I look at this and more I get convinced that there is a big problem here. This article should be named "NLP" and not "metamodels". This is REALLY confusing. NLP represents only a very small fraction of what most people call metamodels. Being a beginner, I don't know how to proceed, but someone should take some action in order to avoid further confusion. Casual, 12:13, 6 May 2006

There is a generic entry for meta model, here meta model. This is meta model (NLP). There was a problem with the redirects. They were coming here, rather than to the main meta model page. I've corrected it now. ---=-C-=- 11:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, so the metamodel (NLP) has a different page to general metamodelling, and there is a link through to the other articles - I would suggest that this particular issue is pretty much sorted out? --Jaybest 19:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree that the third example under presupposition presupposes "my son is lazy." Compare "He's as crazy as a fox," which does not entail that foxes are crazy, but rather that he is not crazy, merely appears so. Indeed, the structure "A is as B as C" can be used to avoid confirming that A is, in fact, B at all, while letting the audience assume that that's the claim. Chaifilius (talk) 04:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

However, despite my disagreement, I didn't edit the entry because I feel the irony may have been intentional: Inasmuch as the article is predominantly on NLP, not on theoretical linguistics, the use of an example with a phantom (gestalt) presupposition reinforces the issue within NLP wrt how language expectations can shape interpretation. Chaifilius (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)