# Alternatives for a relative clause

I wrote:

1) The action part specifies the label or the class that is assigned to the matching node (e.g. content, noise)

Can I write the relative clause in the following forms? If yes, which of these three options are better?

2) The action part specifies the label or the class to be assigned to the matching node (e.g. content, noise)

3) The action part specifies the label or the class to assign the matching node (e.g. content, noise)

4) The action part specifies the label or the class of the matching node (e.g. content, noise)

• Not clear what "the action part" means, but "to be assigned" is clear.
– TimR
Sep 20, 2015 at 1:21
• @TRomano I divided a rule into two parts: C -> A, the condition(al) part and the action part. when the condition is met, the action is executed. Sep 20, 2015 at 5:00

Assuming that #1 expresses your intended meaning:

2) The action part specifies the label or the class to be assigned to the matching node (e.g. content, noise)

This differs from #1 only in that it implied the label has not yet been assigned, whereas #1 implies that it has. This fine distinction might not matter to you or your audience.

3) The action part specifies the label or the class to assign the matching node (e.g. content, noise)

Without "to", it's not clear what is being assigned to what. Again, this might not make a real difference, as the label and node are assigned to each other (or are they? they are mutually associated, but If "assign" is a one-way relation, you'd better specify the direction!)

4) The action part specifies the label or the class of the matching node (e.g. content, noise)

Now you've eliminated the concept of assigning. Maybe specifies is a good stand-in for assign, but if I wanted it to be taken that way, I would say

• "...specifies the (x) for (y)", rather than
• "...specifies the (x) of (y)."