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

[Berthold Crysmann]

Stephan Oepen wrote:

>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.
>  
>
But what about

orthographemics-top-rules :=
	...
	.


to mark final rules...

Berthold


>                                                       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...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20050215/80c18fe6/attachment.html>