Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Improve model readme md templates #2

Open
marnovo opened this issue Oct 16, 2017 · 5 comments
Open

Improve model readme md templates #2

marnovo opened this issue Oct 16, 2017 · 5 comments

Comments

@marnovo
Copy link
Member

marnovo commented Oct 16, 2017

Some to-dos:

  • Add more information about src-d/modelforge's workings and relationship w/ the models.
  • Add file size information.
  • Add more structure to the descriptions.
  • Add more information about the process of training the models, a more detailed overview, etc
    Example that could be used as a template (more suggestions welcome), being more structured and informative: https://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/glove/
@marnovo marnovo changed the title Improve model README templates Improve model readme md templates Oct 16, 2017
@marnovo
Copy link
Member Author

marnovo commented Oct 16, 2017

@EgorBu feel free to add suggestions (and help, heh).

@vmarkovtsev
Copy link
Collaborator

@marnovo What is more structure in the descriptions?

The process of training the models is deprecated and does not use UAST and Babelfish for example. In fact, they are hacky converted proof-of-concept models which only demonstrate that "something works" without any guarantee of the quality. I feel that I should not explain the bloody hell which born them.

@marnovo
Copy link
Member Author

marnovo commented Oct 16, 2017

Sorry, being more specific: structure = organize the descriptions setting headings, lists with the content elements to make it easier to consume the information and to navigate/compare models.

@r0mainK
Copy link
Contributor

r0mainK commented Jul 6, 2018

@marnovo is this still relevant or ?

@marnovo
Copy link
Member Author

marnovo commented Jul 8, 2018

@r0mainK yes—it marginally improved from the baseline, but still light years behind the benchmark.

However, we might want to hold off a bit before working on this, given the discussion over this proposal.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants