Cattuto2008semantic question 3 by lebo

The paper compares five relatedness metrics. We could sit down and make up ten more.

What does a "good" metric look like?
How do we avoid a subjective evaluation of a metric's results? (e.g.,"An interesting observation is also that java and python could be considered as siblings in some suitable concept hierarchy")
If we had the perfect metric (m*), what would we do with it?

A	Question +
About	Cattuto2008semantic +
Author	Tim Lebo +
Question asked	The paper compares five relatedness metric … The paper compares five relatedness metrics. We could sit down and make up ten more. What does a "good" metric look like? How do we avoid a subjective evaluation of a metric's results? (e.g.,"An interesting observation is also that java and python could be considered as siblings in some suitable concept hierarchy") If we had the perfect metric (m), what would we do with it? ect metric (m), what would we do with it?
Question asked by	Tim Lebo +
Question for the Presentation	Semantic Grounding Joshua Shinavier 20089011 +
Text	The paper compares five relatedness metric … The paper compares five relatedness metrics. We could sit down and make up ten more. What does a "good" metric look like? How do we avoid a subjective evaluation of a metric's results? (e.g.,"An interesting observation is also that java and python could be considered as siblings in some suitable concept hierarchy") If we had the perfect metric (m), what would we do with it? ect metric (m), what would we do with it?