change the name of the repo?

[zaidalyafeai]

I like the name aroudh, import aroudh as dh, what do you think @MagedSaeed?

[MagedSaeed]

I agree that this name is more apt. However, I am afraid it might be confused a little with this package [https://github.com/kariminf/aruudy]. What do u think?

[zaidalyafeai]

What is the advantage of our tool compred to that?

[MagedSaeed]

Let me investigate that package more and respond.

[zaidalyafeai]

Can you upload the evaluation set you created for Aroud, I want to compare ours to that. Between, it seems it is not maintained as the latest changes are two years ago.

[MagedSaeed]

Sorry, I did it in another issue

[MagedSaeed]

I checked aruudy. There is a notable overlap. However, there are distinctions.

Commonalities:

• Arudi style [need to evaluate both approaches]
• basic bahr information with patterns
• Zehafs and Tafeelat

Differences:

• This work covers qafiyah analysis, theirs does not.
• This work covers sub-bahrs, I could not identify this in theirs.
• This work covers more special cases in bohour's patterns, I could not identify this in theirs.
• They have in-depth pre-processing steps, more than this work.
• Their work finds bait's bahr from its diacritized form, while this work needs some extension to provide this functionality.

In general, I think both projects are built for two different purposes, hence these differences. This work seems to give more focus on the theory of Aroud while their work seems to give more focus on the applied use of Aroud, especially in software engineering settings.

My analysis:

I think we stick to bohour for any thing related to bohours analysis and, of course, qafiyah. We evaluate aruudi for arudi style and see if their implementation is better than bohour. What do you think @zaidalyafeai ?

[zaidalyafeai]

Working on evaluation now.