[developers] Trigger rules still being requested

[Ann Copestake]

Hmm - does anyone find the TDL output for the trigger rules helpful?  
because, having looked at the code, I would prefer to remove that 
facility completely unless it has support, since it's hardwiring type 
and feature names into the code.   i.e., I would rather go back to the 
original behaviour which meant that warning messages were output (if 
there were no appropriate existing trigger rules) without the TDL being 
suggested.  I believe oe may feel the same way.

The trigger rule mechanism is a mess, in fact.  Learning trigger rules 
from parsed/treebanked data is feasible,  but too big a project for me 
to take on.

Ann

On 10/02/2016 18:47, Dan Flickinger wrote:
>
> Hi Emily -
>
>
> I ran into this behavior too when doing the SWB-oriented grammars for 
> the grammar engineering course I taught with Tom last quarter.  The 
> culprit turns out to be the function index-lexicon(), which right at 
> its end cheerfully emits those warning/advice messages for all 
> semantically empty entries regardless of whether trigger rules have 
> been defined.  Since the same shortcoming is repeated in the separate 
> function reindex-lexicon(), it proved to be easier for me to correct 
> this by changing the function make-trigger-tdl() which they both call, 
> so that the global mt::*transfer-triggers* is checked before emitting 
> the warning for each semantically empty lexical entry.  Here is the 
> patched version of this function analogous to what I added to my 
> grammars' user-fns.lsp file:
>
>
> (defun make-trigger-tdl (empty-semantics-lexical-entries)
>   (let ((empty-no-trigger-entries
>      (loop for id in empty-semantics-lexical-entries
>            unless (or #+:mt
>               (gethash id mt::*transfer-triggers*)
>               nil)
>            collect id)))
>    (loop for x in empty-no-trigger-entries
>       do
>     (format t "~%~%~a_gr := generator_rule &
> [ CONTEXT.RELS <! [ PRED \"non_existing_rel\" ] !>,
>   FLAGS.TRIGGER \"~a\" ]."
>         (string-downcase x)
>         (string-downcase x)))))
>
>
> I expect that Ann or Stephan could see a more elegant way to achieve 
> this effect, but this patch might be a useful temporary expedient.
>
>
>   Dan
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* developers-bounces at emmtee.net <developers-bounces at emmtee.net> 
> on behalf of Emily M. Bender <ebender at uw.edu>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, February 10, 2016 7:43 AM
> *To:* developers
> *Subject:* [developers] Trigger rules still being requested
> Dear all,
>
> In the Matrix derived grammars, we have the following in  lkb/script:
>
> ;;;
> ;;; SSH 2012-03-27 This invokes trigger rules for semantically empty
> ;;; lexical entries. The trigger rules themselves should be in
> ;;; trigger.mtr in the grammar directory. The documentation on trigger
> ;;; rules: http://moin.delph-in.net/LkbGeneration 
> <http://moin.delph-in.net/LkbGeneration>
> ;;;
> ;;; SSH 2013-05-23 The semi.vpm file needs to be loaded *before* the
> ;;; trigger.mtr file in lkb/script for correct interaction.
> ;;;
>
> (mt:read-transfer-rules
>  (list
>   (lkb-pathname (parent-directory) "trigger.mtr"))
>   "Generation trigger rules"
>   :filter nil :task :trigger :recurse nil :edges 200 :subsume nil)
>
> ;;;
> ;;; Matrix-derived grammars often have stable enough semantic
> ;;; representations that the grammar can usefully be tested
> ;;; by generating from them.  The function index-for-generator()
> ;;; must be called for generation to be enabled. In grammars with
> ;;; small lexica, this takes a trivial amount of time.  If
> ;;; generation is not being used regularly, and the indexing
> ;;; is taking too long, comment out the following.  index-for-generator()
> ;;; can also be run from the expanded LKB top menu, under
> ;;; Generate.
> ;;;
>
> (index-for-generator)
>
> It is my understanding that (index-for-generator) is what is behind 
> the messages
> suggesting trigger rules for semantically empty lexical entries, but 
> even though
> we call it after loading the trigger rules, we still get messages such 
> as the following:
>
>
>
> Is there something else we're supposed to do so that we only see those 
> messages
> when an entry truly lacks a trigger rule?
>
> Thanks,
> Emily
>
> -- 
> Emily M. Bender
> Professor, Department of Linguistics
> Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma 
> <http://www.facebook.com/uwclma>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20160210/585d3588/attachment-0001.html>