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

[Michael Wayne Goodman]

Glenn: I added a note here: http://moin.delph-in.net/SemiRfc#Implementation

Stephan: Are there any other details or decisions on the SEM-I Definition
Language (SDL) that could be added to the wiki?

On Thu, Mar 23, 2017 at 11:27 PM, Glenn Slayden <glenn at thai-language.com>
wrote:

> Can we also document any decisions about the optimal implementation
> behavior somewhere on the DELPH-IN wiki, for such a time as I address SEM-I
> issues in ‘agree’ ?
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
> *From:* developers-bounces at emmtee.net [mailto:developers-bounces@
> emmtee.net] *On Behalf Of *Woodley Packard
> *Sent:* Thursday, March 23, 2017 11:05 PM
> *To:* Stephan Oepen <oe at ifi.uio.no>
> *Cc:* Michael Wayne Goodman <goodmami at uw.edu>; developers at delph-in.net
> *Subject:* Re: [developers] Sweaglesw ERG binaries don't include SEM-I?
>
>
>
> Interested parties,
>
>
>
> I’ve now found time to impement behavior (c) from this thread, and tested
> Stephan's jaen.smi and example MRS with and without the change, and can
> report that various denominations of dog can be observed to bark once the
> change (now committed to svn trunk) is applied.
>
>
>
> $ ./ace -g erg-1214.dat -e ~/transfer.debug.oe
>
> The dog barks.
>
> A dog barks.
>
> The dogs bark.
>
> Dogs bark.
>
>
>
>
>
> -Woodley
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>



-- 
Michael Wayne Goodman
Ph.D. Candidate, UW Linguistics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20170324/2b8a3f60/attachment.html>