[developers] Newer 64-bit builds cause Non-structure argument error

Stephan Oepen oe at ifi.uio.no
Sun Aug 12 19:11:55 CEST 2012

here is the LNK documentation referred to by woodley:


to date, only characterization is widely supported in
DELPH-IN tools.  personally, i still think it would be
good to support token identifiers, as this arguably is
the most scalable format.  the LKB should handle all
four formats, albeit some to variable degrees.

as to the interpretation of <>: from my reading of
the above specification, it is unclear whether <> is
valid (equivalent to no LNK information) or not.

the changes i checked in earlier today allow the
MRS Lisp code to read <> without error, so from
my point of view we may as well make it legitimate
syntax, i.e. /explicit/ absence of LNK information.

cheers, oe

On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman
<goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> Yes, it appears the issue has cleared up. Thank you.
> And I am also interested in the answer to Woodley's question about
> possible LNK formats (I was not aware of any besides the <x:y> span).
> Then I can update the MrsRfc page to include them.
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 11:09 PM, Woodley Packard
> <sweaglesw at sweaglesw.org> wrote:
>> I ran into an MRS with that type of LNK information a few weeks ago and ended up making ACE a bit less picky about what's between the < and >.  There are about 4 formats discussed in a comment in the relevant LKB code, including the empty '<>' discussed in this thread, but Stephan's reply seemed to me to suggest that the '<>' is a bug rather than a feature.  For the sake of future clarity, could someone please enumerate what formats are actually considered valid?  The wiki "MrsRfc" page only gives characterization, e.g. '<3:10>', and if there are other acceptable formats it should be extended.
>> Woodley
>> On Aug 12, 2012, at 3:05 AM, Stephan Oepen wrote:
>>> hi again, mike,
>>> i just checked in new (32- and 64-bit) LOGON binaries.
>>> the MRS comparison problem you reported was caused
>>> by bogus LNK information (`<>', no content) on predicate
>>> symbols.  it seems this was introduced by a code change
>>> (from february 2012, though the first builds that included
>>> it probably date to mid-may) i had made.  i have changed
>>> the LNK creation to avoid the bogus outputs; i also made
>>> LNK reading more robust, and further wrapped the MRS
>>> comparison calls from [incr tsdb()], to catch conditions
>>> thrown from the [incr tsdb()]-external code.
>>> could you please see whether the latest builds work for
>>> your purposes?  i am about to commit a revision to the
>>> [incr tsdb()] database schema (to better support forest-
>>> based treebanking), and it would be nice to know there
>>> is a functional revision in SVN before releasing a not
>>> fully backwards-compatible change ...
>>> best, oe
>>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:07 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman
>>> <goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Stephan Oepen <oe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>>>> it looks as if you parsed using the LKB for this run?
>>>> Yes, our regression testing framework still parses with the LKB.
>>>>> the MRSs in current/tiniest are not well-formed, due
>>>>> to bogus characterization, e.g. "_dog_n_rel"<>.
>>>> Ah yes, I see. I also confirm that I get these empty characterizations
>>>> when parsing interactively in the LKB. I do not get this problem when
>>>> parsing with cheap.
>>>>> i can't quite guess how you arrive at this, but would
>>>>> a (tiniest and self-contained, if possible) grammar to
>>>>> debug this further.  do you have a suitable grammar
>>>>> (where, i guess, just browsing the MRS in the LKB
>>>>> should reveal the above problem on your side too)?
>>>> Sure. I attach the "tiniest" grammar. Note that "tiniest" is not the
>>>> only grammar showing the problem (indeed, I think all are), but I use
>>>> it for debugging because of its small size. I thought that perhaps our
>>>> REPP was malformed, since we started using one for tokenization
>>>> recently, but that doesn't explain why different versions of the LOGON
>>>> tree lead to different behavior. Anyway, I hope you have some better
>>>> ideas than I do.
>>>> Note that tiniest is not English. You can use the following sentences
>>>> to test parsing:
>>>> dog slept
>>>> dog cat chased
>>>>> cheers, oe
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 11:20 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman
>>>>> <goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Stephan Oepen <oe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>>>>>> i would
>>>>>>> like to think you should then also see this issue in the
>>>>>>> interactive environment?
>>>>>> You are correct; I now see the error when using the podium. I didn't
>>>>>> think to turn on the MRS field.
>>>>>>> if so, could you just tar(1) up the two profiles that you
>>>>>>> compare in detail and send them to me?
>>>>>> Certainly. I attach the gold and parsed profiles of the "tiniest" grammar.
>>>>>> Many thanks,
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> -Michael Wayne Goodman
>>>> --
>>>> -Michael Wayne Goodman
> --
> -Michael Wayne Goodman

More information about the developers mailing list