Yes it works, but should we move to FSC anyway? (now that we know how to do that) I thought you wanted to get rid of SPPP (are we the only ones using SPPP?)... We could use SPPP with LKB and FSC with PET until there's support for FSC in LKB. <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Lluís Padró <<a href="mailto:padro@lsi.upc.edu">padro@lsi.upc.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> We tried that and it works. It builds the right tokens based on the character-wise positions. So, I guess we'll continue using SPPP, and wait for FSC support in LKB... thank you very much Lluis<div class="im"> On 15/07/11 13:21, Stephan Oepen wrote: </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im"> yes, sorry: that's what i meant. well, SPPP only 'positions' its tokens in terms of character start and end indices (whereas in my example below i was assuming inter-token vertices, as are used in YY). SPPP will create the actual lattice by setting up vertices 'as appropriate' and arranging tokens relative to these (see sppp-serialize-tokens() for the current implementation). so it *should* work to just have three 'token' elements, where "sin" and "sin embargo" have the same 'from' value, and "embargo" and "sin embargo" have the same 'to' value. could you give this a quick shot (and use inspect the LKB SPPP internals and token chart to see what the results are; e.g. print-tchart())? </div><div><div></div><div class="h5"> nb: for the record, i consider the lack of explicit vertices in SPPP a design flaw nowadays, seeing that we consider the input to parsing a lattice of tokens. hence, a moderately extended FSC supported in both PET and the LKB seems like the right way forward, in principle. On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 22:04, Lluís Padró<<a href="mailto:padro@lsi.upc.edu" target="_blank">padro@lsi.upc.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> I guess you mean 0, 1, "sin" 1, 2, "embargo" 0, 2, "sin embargo" ... Then it looks we have been working much more that it was necessary... :} Could you provide more information on the right XML syntax to do that in SPPP ? On 15/07/11 12:59, Stephan Oepen wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> hmm, both YY and SPPP support actual lattices, so why should it not work to have an input like the following? 0, 1, "sin" 1, 2, "embargo" 0, 1, "sin embargo" in fact, even the current LKB should support this; does it not? cheers, oe On 15. juli 2011, at 21.26, Lluís Padró<<a href="mailto:padro@lsi.upc.edu" target="_blank">padro@lsi.upc.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi Stephan Out motivation is not improving integration with PET, but to be able to feed ambiguous tokenization into the SRG (e.g. expressing that the multiword expression "sin_embargo" may be either an actual multiword (one single token) or two separate words (hence two tokens "sin"+"embargo"). As far as we understand, SPPP (or YY) is not capable of representing this kind of ambiguity, while FSC is. We do not use token mapping rules. We tried, but realized they are not what we need. We use chart mapping machinery only because it supports FSC input .The FreeLing interface (chartMap.cc) will take care of all token management and produce the final lattice that has to be loaded into the grammar, so no need for chart mapping rules. For the integration of the morphological information coming from FreeLing, we wrote some lexical rules that do the same work than the ortographemic rules in SPPP, and load the morpohlogical information form the PoS tag into the FS. So far, it seems to work with cheap. Next step will be testing it with [incr tsdb()], which we assume should work also. In summary, if LKB accepted FSC input format (even with no mapping rules), we could forget about SPPP. Meanwhile, we will keep both interfaces. Thank you Montse& Lluis On 15/07/11 12:02, Stephan Oepen wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> hi montse, i'm not sure i understand exactly what you're planning to do here, but i see that dan sent you a link to the general chart mapping machinery, and i noticed the new ChartMap.cc in FreeLing, which appears to output (more or less, i would guess) the same information as LKBAnalyzer.cc, but in the FSC format rather than SPPP. for FL integration with the LKB, SPPP currently is your only (supported) option, i.e. not requiring you to provide your own Lisp code to call out to the tagger and interpret its results (this is what Jacy still does for ChaSen, but mostly because that interface was built prior to SPPP). so i am assuming you want to improve integration with PET here? as it is currently, you can only use PET in connection with [incr tsdb()], which will then invoke FL through the SPPP interface and reformat its result in a form suitable for input to PET. there are currently two such formats (that are officially supported): YY and FSC. YY is equivalent to SPPP in what it can express, but using a more compact, non-XML syntax. for more details, please see: <a href="http://wiki.delph-in.net/moin/PetInput" target="_blank">http://wiki.delph-in.net/moin/PetInput</a> FSC is a more recent invention (by peter adolphs) that seeks to further generalize what can be provided as input to PET, going all the way to a lattice of (arbitrary) token feature structures. however, for all i recall, in FSC input mode there is currently no support for 'annotating' tokens with information about mandatory orthographemic rules (i.e. setting what in PET internally is known as the inflr_todo list on lexical items). i recall peter and i discussed the necessity of this feature (which is available in YY mode) several times and concluded it was maybe unneeded. one could 'mimic' the intended effect in the feature structures of the rules, i.e. have a list (+RULES or so) on each token feature structure, where members in this list could be strings naming orthographemic rules. to enforce the application of a specific chain of orthographemic rules, the grammar would have to (a) percolate the +RULES value on all lexical signs (lexical entries and lexical rules); (b) make each orthorgraphemic rule require its own name to be the 'next' rule to be called for (e.g. the value of a path like ARGS.FIRST.+RULES.FIRST); (c) 'pop' the +RULES list upon application of an orthographemic rule, i.e. percolate up to the mother ARGS.FIRST.+RULES.REST; and (d) require an empty +RULES value on all arguments to syntactic rules. i am not quite sure i would actually recommend the above approach to anyone. one issue i see with it just now reflects recent discussion i had with dan and others about extending our notion of a derivation, to actually record additional information about the string-level effects upon application of each orthographemic rule (so as to be able to recover the corresponding surface form at the rule daughter and mother, e.g. if one were to accomodate tokenization conventions that split off punctuation marks). in the approach sketched above, this information would not be available---whereas it could be when PET (like the LKB) remains in full control of the application of orthographemic rules. however, when working with an external morphological analyzer (as is the case for the SRG), one would still need more information than is currently supported in YY. for example, one could imagine extending the FSC 'edge' element with an 'analysis' element quite similar to the one in SPPP. this is an area for revision that i would like to discuss with peter aver the holidays. --- in summary, your (assumed) desire to improve integration of PET and FL (without requiring the assistance of [incr tsdb()]) has prompted me to recall some remaining open questions in the token lattice input design for PET, particularly in connection with an external morphological analyzer. i plan on returning to these jointly with peter before too long. in the meantime, i suspect you might actually be better served using YY input format for PET (which, after all, is what [incr tsdb()] converts to from SPPP inputs). fortunately, the specific input format used (YY or FSC) is independent of the use of chart mapping. that is, using either format, as soon as the initial lattice of token feature structures is created in PET, everything else remains the same. thus, if you were looking to utilize chart mapping to improve your treatment of numbers, dates, or other named entities that can be recognized in terms of regular expressions, you could do so by adding a set of token mapping rules to the SRG (much like we have in the ERG). that would remain valid no matter what revisions to FSC (and possibly YY) might be down the road :-). i hope there may be some useful information in this partly self-serving message to you! best, oe On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 18:46, Montserrat Marimon <<a href="mailto:montserrat.marimon@ub.edu" target="_blank">montserrat.marimon@ub.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"> Hi everybody, Since the SRG is the only grammar which integrates a tagger using SPPP, we've decided to use chart parsing to integrate it. Is there any document we could read? Thanks, -- Montserrat Marimon Departament de Lingüística General Facultat de Filologia - Universitat de Barcelona Edifici Josep Carner, 5a planta Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585 08007 BARCELONA tel.: <a href="tel:%2B%2034%2093%204034695" value="+34934034695" target="_blank">+ 34 93 4034695</a> <a href="http://stel.ub.edu/linguistica-ub/" target="_blank">http://stel.ub.edu/linguistica-ub/</a> </blockquote></blockquote></blockquote></blockquote> </blockquote></div></div></blockquote> </blockquote></div> -- Montserrat Marimon Departament de Lingüística General Facultat de Filologia - Universitat de Barcelona Edifici Josep Carner, 5a planta Gran Via de les Corts Catalanes, 585 08007 BARCELONA tel.: + 34 93 4034695 <a href="http://stel.ub.edu/linguistica-ub/" target="_blank">http://stel.ub.edu/linguistica-ub/</a>