[developers] a late follow-up from lisboa
Ann.Copestake at cl.cam.ac.uk
Wed Oct 26 22:24:42 CEST 2005
Thanks very much for producing this.
minor quick comments:
> distinction in the type system already (in my view, the LKB use of
> the term `lexical' rule is potentially mis-leading; but documented).
documented, very long-standing and discussed in a number of papers ...
> i (still) have yet to re-read the earlier discussion on this on the
> `developers' list, but currently at least berthold seems affected
> by the two systems not doing the same (and the LKB no longer doing
> what it used to). so, it seems as if a written specification for
> the mechanism was needed, and then hopefully we can aim at getting
> all processors to implement it alike.
a non-procedural written specification. I produced an attempt at this which
you'll find on developers
re MAF, PIC etc - a detailed discussion has been going on about this
between Ben, Uli S and Bernd. I feel that MAF is important for
interaction with the outside world, but that the most important thing
is that we agree we're going to support:
a) character position specification enabling stand-off annotation
b) ambiguity from tokenisation onwards
c) feature structure output from tokenisation, especially for named entities
(whoops, I think I've forgotten one, anyway, one of the others will no
doubt remind me). Anyway, MAF and PIC both support these
notationally. I understand PET supports them internally and the LKB
now supports them all too internally (or will do so very shortly). I
think a) has implications for the HoG issues that you raise. However,
I would like to suggest that we leave Ben et al to report on this
after they've met in a couple of weeks in Saarbruecken rather than
discuss it further by email.
More information about the developers