[developers] Questions on the syntax of TDL
Michael Wayne Goodman
goodmami at uw.edu
Fri Jul 13 02:51:13 CEST 2018
Thanks, Francis,
On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 5:06 PM, Francis Bond <bond at ieee.org> wrote:
> G'day,
>
> Part of the motivation for the """ syntax was to allow double quotes
> in the doc strings, the current implementation (at least in the lkb)
> did not allow for them, even quoted \". I think none of the
> developers have expressed any issues with having a multi-character TDL
> operator, so perhaps in practice it is not a big issue?
>
Plenty of places in the Lisp code allow for escaped characters, so I think
that wouldn't be a problem, but the triple-quote syntax is better, I think.
In addition to not requiring escapes, it also looks like it's meant to be a
docstring and not a regular string.
> Luis and I have been rebuilding the Linguistic Type Data-Base, and
> would very much like to use the doc-strings, we could live with a
> single " (and support for \") or with a list of strings (again with
> support for \") but would mildly prefer """ for aesthetic reasons. I
> think Bec has a patch for """ for PET, and Dan for the lkb (although
> only for types and not instances if I recall correctly). We have
> been discussing this for over 10 years, it would be really nice to
> actually have something available this year :-).
>
Agreed. And maybe defaults, too (oops, that topic is for another thread).
>
> On Fri, Jul 13, 2018 at 5:31 AM, Stephan Oepen <oe at ifi.uio.no> wrote:
> > dear all,
> >
> > i dimply recall there have been multiple previous discussions of
> > documentation strings, but so far i could only turn up one such thread
> > (which appears somewhat inconclusive, but provides some useful
> > reminders also related to other questions originally raised by mike);
> >
> > http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/2007/000868.html
> >
> > personally, i would think that there is complete freedom in how to
> > order the various types of statements in TDL conjunctions, including
> > repetition, e.g.
> >
> > foo := [ FOO + ] & bar & [ BAR - ] & baz.
> >
> > ann in that historic thread points out that it can be sensible to have
> > instance definitions without explicit mention of the type; and i
> > imagine the same could in principle also apply to type definitions
> > (given strict appropriateness and type inference).
> >
> > so i am tempted to assume there is nothing special about the position
> > of ‘parent’ types.
> >
> > i can see how the triple-double-quote syntax (""" ... """) would be
> > position-independent, but it would seem to make lexical analysis more
> > complex: currently, i believe, all TDL operators are single
> > characters.
> >
> > i am wondering: could a simple string ever be part of the top-level
> > conjunction in a type or instance definition? if so, how? if not,
> > what would speak against treating all top-level TDL strings as
> > documentation associated with the type or instance definition,
> > independent of their position relative to other elements of a
> > top-level conjunction, e.g. any of the following variants
> >
> > foo :=
> > "a silly example" &
> > bar & [ FOO + ].
> >
> > foo := bar &
> > "a silly example" &
> > [ FOO + ].
> >
> > foo := bar &
> > [ FOO + ] &
> > "a silly example".
> >
> > for full generality, one could then either allow a list of
> > documentation strings associated with each type or instance definition
> > (and have the addendum operator add to the tail of the list), or
> > simply concatenate all such strings into one (presumably adding at
> > least one newline between each pair of strings).
> >
> > —mike, many thanks for your work towards an up-to-date and
> > consolidated definition of TDL syntax!
> >
> > oe
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 12, 2018 at 7:15 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman <goodmami at uw.edu>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:59 PM, Francis Bond <bond at ieee.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> On my phone so forgive the brevity, but in Paris we agreed that the
> >>> docstring will start and end with three ". I think this is what pet
> now
> >>> supports, Dan has a patch for the lkb, and I suspect I was meant to ask
> >>> Woodley to add out to ACE.
> >>
> >>
> >> Sorry I missed out on all the fun this year :(
> >>
> >> I see what you describe mentioned in the LTDB presentation:
> >> http://users.sussex.ac.uk/~johnca/summit-2018/ltdb-update.pdf
> >>
> >> It seems the changes to PET are not yet merged in. Also I think Glenn
> would
> >> also like to know about the agreement.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Comments anywhere would be great.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for pushing this forward Michael.
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, 12 Jul 2018, 12:34 Michael Wayne Goodman, <goodmami at uw.edu>
> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018, 19:24 Woodley Packard <sweaglesw at sweaglesw.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2 cents worth...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 1. I think the logical behavior for an addendum with a doc string is
> >>>>> concatenation, not replacement. The doc string on the addendum
> should
> >>>>> document what the addendum adds to the type, not the whole type.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmm, good point. I guess the addendum can only add constraints, so the
> >>>> old docstring wouldn't necessarily become invalid. I was comparing to
> method
> >>>> overrides in Python classes, but that's not a useful comparison.
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2. ACE (I believe) allows comments just about anywhere in TDL. I
> find
> >>>>> this very useful when editing TDL, e.g. annotating changes on a fine
> grained
> >>>>> level or disabling certain constraints temporarily without deleting
> them.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yes, it's definitely more useful to allow comments almost anywhere,
> and
> >>>> not really hard to parse, either.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Regards,
> >>>>> Woodley
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Jul 11, 2018, at 5:00 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman <goodmami at uw.edu>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thank you, Bernd, for the feedback. But I'm not having success
> parsing
> >>>>> types with docstrings using PET. E.g., I changed sign-min in the ERG
> like
> >>>>> this:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> sign_min := *avm* &
> >>>>> "doc"
> >>>>> [ SYNSEM synsem_min,
> >>>>> KEY-ARG bool ].
> >>>>>
> >>>>> But flop doesn't like it:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> goodmami at tpy:~/grammars/erg$ flop english.tdl
> >>>>> reading `Version.lsp'...
> >>>>> converting `english.tdl' (ERG (1214)) into `english.grm' ...
> >>>>> loading `english.tdl'... including `fundamentals.tdl'...
> >>>>> fundamentals.tdl:21:3: error: (syntax) - got ` [',
> >>>>> expecting `.' at end of type definition
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I get similar errors no matter where I put it (before :=, directly
> after
> >>>>> :=, after ]). It's syntactically valid if I have ... *avm* & "doc" &
> ...,
> >>>>> but then it has trouble unifying (as expected).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It does, however, seem to be happy having a comment there (both ;
> and #|
> >>>>> styles) instead of a doc string.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm using flop version 0.99.14svn_cm from the LOGON distribution.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 7:00 AM, Bernd Kiefer <Bernd.Kiefer at dfki.de>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Concerning question 3, at least in TDL and PET there was no such
> >>>>>> restriction,
> >>>>>> but that could make the definition of docstrings easier.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Bernd
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11.07.2018 03:01, Michael Wayne Goodman wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I attempted to define a BNF-like description of TDL syntax on the
> wiki:
> >>>>>> http://moin.delph-in.net/TdlRfc
> >>>>>> I tried to follow the partial BNF in the LKB source and often
> referred
> >>>>>> to the lisp code itself in order to fill out the rest of the
> description.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> My 3 questions above are concisely repeated at the bottom of the
> wiki
> >>>>>> along with some others.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I welcome corrections and discussion (here or on the wiki) from any
> TDL
> >>>>>> nerds or authorities (especially if you've written a TDL parser).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Mon, Jul 9, 2018 at 12:49 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman
> >>>>>> <goodmami at uw.edu> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi developers,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I'm taking a closer look at the syntax of TDL files and the
> situation
> >>>>>>> is a bit of a mess. Can anyone help me clarify some things? (I'll
> restrict
> >>>>>>> myself to 3 questions for now)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Copestake 2002 reference (Implementing TFS Grammars) has a BNF
> for
> >>>>>>> TDL, but it's a bit out of date and, according to comments in the
> LKB source
> >>>>>>> code, incorrect in parts. The LKB source comments are scattered,
> incomplete,
> >>>>>>> inconsistent, and also a bit outdated. There is not much on the
> wiki. There
> >>>>>>> is some discussion in the mailing list archives (much from before
> my time in
> >>>>>>> DELPH-IN), but it's not clear how current those descriptions are.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Q1: Are supertypes special in a definition?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The BNF (in the LKB source) says this:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Type-def -> Type { Avm-def | Subtype-def} . |
> >>>>>>> Type { Avm-def | Subtype-def}.
> >>>>>>> Avm-def -> := Conjunction | Comment Conjunction
> >>>>>>> Conjunction -> Term { & Term } *
> >>>>>>> Term -> Type | Feature-term | Diff-list | List | Coreference
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> That makes it sound like I could do this:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mytype := [ FEAT val ] & supertype.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> or even:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mytype := <! diff list.. !> & #coref & supertype.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But elsewhere it seems like a list of parents is special and
> appears
> >>>>>>> before the rest of the conjunction. E.g., at read-tdl-avm-def of
> >>>>>>> lingo/lkb/src/io-tdl/tdltypeinput.lsp I see this alternate
> definition of
> >>>>>>> Avm-def:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ;;; Avm-def -> := Parents Conjunction | Parents Comment
> Conjunction
> >>>>>>> |
> >>>>>>> ;;; Parents | Parents Comment
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It seems that both ACE and PET are fine with putting supertypes
> after
> >>>>>>> the feature list (and some other variations). I'm fine with this,
> but I
> >>>>>>> wonder what it means for docstrings (see Q3 below), which (I
> think) are
> >>>>>>> supposed to appear after the list of parents and before the
> feature list.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Q2: Subtype-def is now just a variant of Avm-def, yes?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The BNF still describes subtyping (with the :< operator) as only
> >>>>>>> taking a single parent:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Subtype-def -> :< type
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> But I believe the consensus is that this is unnecessary (it's
> >>>>>>> equivalent to using := with only a supertype), so :< is treated as
> >>>>>>> equivalent to := (to avoid breaking backward compatibility). Is
> this
> >>>>>>> interpretation used by all processors?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Q3: What's the final word with type comments / docstrings?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I find evidence of 3 proposed variants: (1) a block of ";" comments
> >>>>>>> before a typename (LTDB-style); (2) a block of ";" comments within
> a type
> >>>>>>> description; and (3) a "doc string" within a type description.
> Furthermore,
> >>>>>>> there is a question as to whether comments or strings within a
> type go after
> >>>>>>> the ":=" or after the list of supertypes. I think #| ... |#
> comments were
> >>>>>>> not considered for this purpose.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> My guess is this:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> * LTDB-style comments (before the type identifier) are processed
> >>>>>>> separately from TDL-parsing
> >>>>>>> * type-internal comments can go anywhere but are discarded
> >>>>>>> * type-internal doc strings must appear after the list of
> supertypes
> >>>>>>> and are later available for inspection (they are included as a
> >>>>>>> non-functional part of a type)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ACE seems happy with my assumptions, although PET doesn't seem to
> like
> >>>>>>> doc strings at all.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> Michael Wayne Goodman
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Michael Wayne Goodman
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >>>>>> Bernd Kiefer DFKI GmbH, Stuhlsatzenhausweg, D-66123
> Saarbruecken
> >>>>>> kiefer at dfki.de +49-681/85775-5301 (phone) +49-681/85775-5338
> (fax)
> >>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >>>>>> Deutsches Forschungszentrum fuer Kuenstliche Intelligenz GmbH
> >>>>>> Trippstadter Strasse 122, D-67663 Kaiserslautern, Germany
> >>>>>> Geschaeftsfuehrung: Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Wolfgang Wahlster (Vor-
> >>>>>> sitzender), Dr. Walter Olthoff
> >>>>>> Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Prof. Dr. h.c. Hans A. Aukes
> >>>>>> Amtsgericht Kaiserslautern, HRB 2313
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Michael Wayne Goodman
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Michael Wayne Goodman
>
>
>
> --
> Francis Bond <http://www3.ntu.edu.sg/home/fcbond/>
> Division of Linguistics and Multilingual Studies
> Nanyang Technological University
>
--
Michael Wayne Goodman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20180712/cbf7d2f7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the developers
mailing list