On Wed, Apr 9, 2008 at 6:03 AM, Stephen Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would be interested
> in your comments on my adoption of Fluid Construction Grammar as a solution
> to the NL  to semantics mapping problem.
>
(1) Word Grammar (WG) is a construction-free version of your approach.
It is based solely on spreading activation. It doesn't have a sharp
separation of syntax and semantics: there's only one net. Nodes
representing subgraphs corresponding to constructions can be organized
into inheritance hierarchies (extensibility). But "pure WG" makes
things very awkward logics-wise, making it work would be a lot of
research (the WG book doesn't discuss utterance generation IIRC, but
reversing parsing-interpretation seems quite direct: select the most
activated word which doesn't have a left landmark, introduce a
word-instance node for it, include spreading its activation through a
right-landmark (ignoring direction of the landmark) edge). Texai is
impure by its very nature, perhaps it could be made more (than just
sharing the spreading activation idea) of a mix WG*FCG.

(2) FCG is closer to traditional apporaches a la "computational
linguistics" than WG.

(3) One could give up some FCG features to simplify it, for example by
assuming one-to-one correspondence between constructions and atomic
predicates.

(4) I'm interested in how do you handle backtracking: giving up on
application of a construction when it leads to inconsistency.
Chart-based unification parsing can be optimized to share applications
of constructions which are "parallel", and this can be extended to
operators which are (like unification) monotonic, e.g. cannot make
unsatisfiable/inconsistent state a satisfiable/consistent one. Merging
conjuncts new facts to old ones so it is monotonic in monotonic
logics. (Default/defeasible logics are nonmonotonic.)

(4a) Does the fact that your parser is incremental mean that you do
"early commitment" to constructions? (Double R Grammar seems to
support early commitment when there is choice, but backtracking is
still needed to get an interpretation when there are only ones without
it.)

I will get to studying your sources when I'll have some time...

-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: 
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=98558129-0bdb63
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com

Reply via email to