[Fwd: Re: [developers] processing of lexical rules]
Ann Copestake
Ann.Copestake at cl.cam.ac.uk
Fri Feb 18 17:17:43 CET 2005
I had a quick look at some of Emily and Jeff's slides already and this all
seems very sensible. I don't see why, in principle, there should be a problem
about supporting morphophonology in the same db as is used for the LKB/PET but
there may be practical problems to do with XFST etc, of course. It looks as
though a Windows port of the LKB db stuff should become possible in principle
soon, btw.
I still think that in terms of integrating an external morphophonology system
and the LKB, by far the easiest approach will be for the external system to
instantiate a chart (i.e. the retokenisation option). The alternative of
making it guide a partial derivation involves much more detailed integration
of code, and isn't suitable for a pipelined implementation.
In terms of conceptualising this as turning funny morphology into Italian or
whatever - I'm happy with that. But I just want to point out that if you
don't want to conceptualise these intermediate entities as things that can be
modelled as strings, you don't have to (as far as the LKB is concerned),
because the idea is to support instantiation of the chart with feature
structures directly. The morphophonology as FST paradigm does, of course,
tend to limit you somewhat, but I think it may make sense to think of the
output of morphophonology as structured objects.
Ann
More information about the developers
mailing list