[Fwd: Re: [developers] processing of lexical rules]

[Stephan Oepen]

hi bernd,

> I think if there is a list of options to gain efficiency here, i'd
> like to add the code i just implemented to activate the rule filter
> as (e), since it seems to work for German, at least.

certainly, i even offered (in private email to berthold) to try and
implement the rule filter approach in the LKB (as another temporary
measure while re-design and re-implementation proceed). 

we should maybe agree on a coherent naming scheme then, such that for a 
change both systems could use the same names for these parameters.  how
about the following:

  (a) orthographemics-maximum-chain-depth := 2.
  (b) orthographemics-minimum-stem-length := 1.
  (c) orthographemics-duplicate-filter.
  (d) orthographemics-bottom-rules :=
        a-lexeme-negative-cons-stem-infl-rule
        adj2adv-lexeme-infl-rule.
  (e) orthographemics-cohesive-chains.

i would of course agree with ann that we should not have more of these
than is practically needed, since they all are arbitrary stipulations.

                                                       cheers  -  oe

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++ Universitetet i Oslo (ILF); Boks 1102 Blindern; 0317 Oslo; (+47) 2285 7989
+++     CSLI Stanford; Ventura Hall; Stanford, CA 94305; (+1 650) 723 0515
+++       --- oe at csli.stanford.edu; oe at hf.uio.no; stephan at oepen.net ---
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++