[Fwd: Re: [developers] processing of lexical rules]
crysmann at dfki.de
Tue Feb 15 22:43:57 CET 2005
Stephan Oepen wrote:
>>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 :=
> (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.
But what about
to mark final rules...
> 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 ---
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the developers