tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536960326300527592.post4917300046411632255..comments2015-10-26T13:22:58.817+00:00Comments on Sepulkarium: Time flies like an arrow: an ambiguity resolution examplePeter Gromovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05601586254795238403noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536960326300527592.post-4875053933626063912008-12-16T15:55:00.000+00:002008-12-16T15:55:00.000+00:00To me it seems really a good idea. It simplifies o...To me it seems really a good idea. It simplifies output a lot. Keeping more info considered premature optimization ;).<BR/><BR/>I don't want to write the standard form because there can be several of them, cluttering the output. Recalculation can be easily replaced by caching, producing all the things you want to remember without changing the tree structure.<BR/><BR/>Morphological analysis can be done by parser producing something like '(3dperson fly)', though this will greatly increase the number of concurring compositions. I need to think more about that.Peter Gromovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05601586254795238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536960326300527592.post-8259737000232852022008-12-16T15:32:00.000+00:002008-12-16T15:32:00.000+00:00Is it a good idea to forget all information except...Is it a good idea to forget all information except a simple tree? And then recover it again in the process of "ambuguity resolution".<BR/>The only usage I can imagine is to let user input sentences directly in the LISP form. Then we do need to disambiguate the input.<BR/><BR/>You even don't suggest to write a standard form of words in the composition. If I process the forld "flies" I should repeat morpholical analysis again if I want to find out that this is a verb "fly"Ilyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17822917153728443435noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536960326300527592.post-61663061066622779752008-12-15T07:53:00.000+00:002008-12-15T07:53:00.000+00:00The idea is that the described structure is precis...The idea is that the described structure is precisely the result of parser. When I write "arrow" it's precisely a string or a LISP atom, nothing more. The evaluator will then interpret these strings/atoms as it likes; different evaluators may assign different meanings to these values.<BR/>When a new composition is added to the existing tree, all possible evaluators (at least syntax-head and semantic ones) are run and help in selecting only those compositions that produce the right result. But then their results are forgotten (or rather cached) which leaves us with a very simple tree.Peter Gromovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05601586254795238403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6536960326300527592.post-76280894017261528052008-12-14T23:18:00.000+00:002008-12-14T23:18:00.000+00:00Hello All!I can't actually understand the need of ...Hello All!<BR/><BR/>I can't actually understand the need of disambiguation. As far as I understand it was already done in the process of generating the three function compositions. Every word-aka-function in a composition is connected with some disambiguating dictionary entry, otherwise how could we manage to build this three compositions and don't even consider other compositions such as ((arrow (an time)) (flies like)).Ilyahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17822917153728443435noreply@blogger.com