[developers] ERG: any recent papers?

[Olga Zamaraeva]

Thank you, Ned,

I need to rectify a mistake, I think.

I confused two reviews; one gave me the impression they did not read the
work, another mentioned the 2000 thing. In general, this other one was not
shortsighted at all.

So, my bad.

Still, great to know about the 2011 canonical citation.

Olga
On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:40 PM Francis Bond <bond at ieee.org> wrote:

> I would encourage Dan to update this in his canonical citation link:
>
> canonical citation
> Flickinger 2000 ([http://lingo.stanford.edu/danf/ergbib.txt .bib])
>
> And also to add a citation.bib file to the ERG itself with both papers
> listed.
>
> And then maybe update the grammar catalogue :-).
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 6:23 AM, Ned Letcher <ned at nedned.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Olga,
>>
>> I recently asked Dan about canonical ERG citations. He said to me that,
>> in addition to Flickinger 2000, he's recently started also citing the
>> following:
>>
>> Flickinger, D. (2011) "Accuracy vs. Robustness in Grammar Engineering,"
>> in E.M. Bender and J.E. Arnold, eds. Language from a Cognitive Perspective:
>> Grammar, Usage, and Processing, pp. 31--50.  CSLI Publications, Stanford.
>>
>>
>> So he typically cites the ERG as (Flickinger 2000, 2011).
>>
>> Hope that helps,
>> Ned
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017 at 22:48 Olga Zamaraeva <olzama at uw.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> One of my reviewers recently was unhappy about my ERG citation in the
>>> introduction (Flickinger, 2000) since it made them think the technology I
>>> am using was very old. So much so they misread the accompanying 2014
>>> citation and thought that also dated back to 2000. They did not notice
>>> that, in the section where we give the overview of the approach, we give
>>> also the version number, the URL for the online demo etc. I am assuming
>>> this first mention made them so disinterested they did not really want to
>>> read the paper in detail.
>>>
>>> Are there some recent things to cite, when referring to ERG in general?
>>> It would look better I think if it were something like (... 2000; ... 2010;
>>> ... 2016). Better than a footnote saying something like "yes we know it is
>>> 2000, but it is under constant development".
>>>
>>> Perhaps this would be a good one?
>>>
>>> @inproceedings{flickinger2014towards,
>>>   title={Towards an Encyclopedia of Compositional Semantics: Documenting the Interface of the English Resource Grammar.},
>>>   author={Flickinger, Dan and Bender, Emily M and Oepen, Stephan},
>>>   booktitle={LREC},
>>>   pages={875--881},
>>>   year={2014}
>>> }
>>>
>>> Anything else?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> Olga
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Francis Bond <http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/>
> Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies
> Nanyang Technological University
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20170608/d9f3043e/attachment-0001.html>