[developers] Sweaglesw ERG binaries don't include SEM-I?

Woodley Packard sweaglesw at sweaglesw.org
Wed Mar 15 19:27:51 CET 2017

I believe I could do option (c) easily though have yet to investigate.

The self-help approach you are envisioning suggests to me that the application-specific SEM-I extensions should be maintained independently of the base grammar; any opinions on this?  If so, and if the extensions were relatively compact (say, hundreds of lines instead of hundreds of thousands) I could imagine a runtime option to the generator saying something along the lines of "please apply the following patches to the SEM-I before starting," as opposed to requiring the changes to be compiled into an ACE ERG image to be used only for JaEn, for instance.


> On Mar 15, 2017, at 11:16 AM, Stephan Oepen <oe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> hiya,
>> Those warnings perhaps merit some investigation, but I don't think they are
>> fatal are they?  Did you try the resulting grammar to no avail?
> i suspect you might be ignoring declarations for which that warning is
> output?  which would explain why the hierarchy extensions currently
> have no effect in ACE.
> how to interpret repeated subsumption declarations for the same
> predicate is one of the fine points of the SEM-I Definition Language
> (SDL) that we have yet to specify.
> one could (a) ignore declarations for predicates that have been seen
> to the left of ‘<’ before; (b) merge the right-hand side of all such
> declarations into the union of parents; or (c) treat them as
> re-definitions, i.e. let the chronologically last such declaration
> take effect.
> i believe the LKB currently applies strategy (b), which in this case
> leads to the same effect as (c) because i also apply transitive
> reduction to the parent declarations.
> but to fully enable users to configure custom predicate hierarchies
> without changing core ERG files, my current sense is that we should
> opt for (c)—which presumably would not be harder to implement than
> (a).
> woodley, could you agree to this point of view (and if so, make it so
> in ACE :-)?
> it would really feel like a break-through if we ended up solving the
> current JaEn issue by empowering francis and colleagues to augment the
> ERG predicate hierarchy non-intrusively.  making that possible (and
> practical) was among my key reasons for pushing foward the use of the
> SEM-I for all processing that has at its core MRS manipulation.
> cheers, oe

More information about the developers mailing list