Any opinions on Operator Grammar vs. Link Grammar?
A Link Grammar parser is relatively easy to implement and has low system
requirements. Link Grammar uses (and depends upon) the phenomenon of
planarity to (reasonably effectively) identify the parts of speech in
English grammar. As such, it primarily deals with syntax (simpler) rather
than semantics (much tougher).
Operator Grammar deals much more with semantics.
My personal opinion is that -- contrary to what is stated in Wikipedia
(where it says "The categories in Operator Grammar are universal and are
defined purely in terms of how words relate to other words, and do not rely
on an external set of categories such as noun, verb, adjective, adverb,
preposition, conjunction, etc. The dependency properties of each word are
observable through usage and therefore learnable") -- the most effective way
to use Operator Grammar concepts is to implement them as the next step after
a Link Grammar parser.
While it may be true that "the dependency properties of each word are
observable through usage and therefore learnable", it is my personal belief
that the "external set of categories such as noun, verb, adjective, adverb,
preposition, conjunction, etc" are pretty much universal and that
re-learning them is a waste of time.
Using the concepts of Operator Grammar can help disambiguate situations
where the Link Parser returns several viable parses, can help to learn new
words, and an important step in moving from syntax (which is all that the
Link Grammar parser really does) to semantics (which is really what Operator
Grammar does) and then meaning and understanding. I actually re-invented
(in a manner of speaking) dependency before I ran across it in Operator
Grammar and have subsequently learned much from Harris's treatments of both
dependency and reduction and have implemented a lot of them in my current
project.
So -- again, in my opinion -- Link Grammar wins the Google fight because it
is much easier; but, you really need both to get anywhere (plus a huge dose
of Construction Grammar -- which you'll notice just barely wins a Google
fight with Link Grammar :-).
Mark
----- Original Message -----
From: "Chuck Esterbrook" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:24 PM
Subject: [agi] Parsing theories
Any opinions on Operator Grammar vs. Link Grammar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_Grammar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_grammar
Link Grammar seems to have spawned practical software, but Operator
Grammar has some compelling ideas including coherent selection,
information content and more. Maybe these ideas are too hard or too
ill-defined to implement?
Or, in other words, why does Link Grammar win the GoogleFight?
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=%22link+grammar%22&word2=%22operator+grammar%22
(http://tinyurl.com/yvu9xr)
-Chuck
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&;
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=fabd7936
