On 5/22/07, Chuck Esterbrook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Any opinions on Operator Grammar vs. Link Grammar?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_Grammar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_grammar
That wiki article is too little to judge, but I'd say that operator
grammar takes most ideas from dependency grammar and some (stress on
semantics) from categorial grammar. It is also probabilistic by
default, while other approaches add probabilities as an after-thought.
But operator grammar is not a "main player in the field" (correct me
if I'm wrong). The main players are:
HPSG, LFG, xTAG, dependency grammars (including multidimensional), CCG.
The entry point are "context free" unification grammars.
For what I know, link grammar has not yet been "lifted" into a
unification grammar.
--
"Any sufficiently advanced linguistic framework is indistinguishable from HPSG."
(an application of Clarke's third law)
-----
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
