This is feedback from Robert Lew,
rlew@amu.edu.pl, professor at Adam Mickiewicz University and editor of the International Journal of Lexicography. Robert didnât want to go through the motions of signing up for this mailing list etc. but he has given me permission to submit his feedback on his behalf and he has agreed to the OASIS Feedback License.
---
First, using the example colour / color, I see that the model assumes "full treatment" under one headword. At this point there's a bit of an arbitrary decision which 'variant' becomes the reference, and there's a structural imbalance between the variants. Assuming the publisher wanted to vary the presentation depending on the user's preference of American or European spelling (also (S) African, Australian and NZ, but that's beside the point). For the American as primary, they'd have to do some extra operations when using this particular model: perhaps it would be possible to include a sentence in the summary that this is doable, to anticipate any worries to that effect (and another sentence as to HOW this might be done, if not too complex).
Second, referring the WALK example with listingOrder:1 and listingOrder:2 -- to me this seems worryingly literal and inflexible. I'm thinking of a scenario whereby we might want, in analogous cases, implement a rule that these entries are presented in a separately given order of POS, e.g. n > v > adj > adv > prep ..., rather than hard-coded. Would that be possible? Another option: using a rule to look up some kind of metric to compute the order, e.g in a separate table
walk  Ân  Â9
walk  Âv  Â6
(This could be frequency or figures from known usage logs expressing past user behavious, or a combination of different things.)
Don't know if these comments make sense. Perhaps they are answered in the full documentation which I admit I didn't look at, but these are the two questions that came to my mind when reading your (excellent) overview.
[...]
Very best,
Robert