[developers] LKB vs. PET divergences
Ann.Copestake at cl.cam.ac.uk
Mon Feb 14 14:36:15 CET 2005
looking at the grammar now ...
oe at csli.Stanford.EDU said:
> looking at the definition of the rule, i also noticed it uses multiple
> supertypes in the instance definition. this is generally illegal, but
> happens to succeed in this case, because for:
> vstem-vstem-rule := head-final-type & orth-princ & [...]
> there appears to be a glb in the type hierarchy. both systems seem to
> compile the above without complaint, but i believe the above situation
> should be flagged or outright rejected as syntactically ill-formed.
No, it's not illegal. The stuff on the RHS of the := is just a definition of
a TFS and so there's no formal reason to require that just one type should be
specified. It's valid to have no types or many types there. If there isn't a
type which is the glb of the types specified, the description will fail to
unify and will thus fail.
It is an unclear definition, however, and someone might want to write a
checker to make sure that definitions meet various conventions, but I don't
think such a check should be built into the AVM reading code or made part of
More information about the developers