Re: [Mt-list] Re: MT-List digest, Vol 1 #36 - 2 msgs

[Eduard Hovy]

I think the point Andy was trying to make was why stop there?  Why
should EBMT be asked to compare to SMT but not rule-based MT?  Why are
SMT approaches not rejected for not comparing their results to state
of the art EBMT and rule base MT?  It would be great if every one had
the resources to do this in every paper, but no one does.   And given
that no-one does, why are EBMT papers criticized for not making comparisons,
while SMT papers aren't?
Hi Francis!
Seems to me ideally one would refer to all relevant work, up to some 
point of relevance.  Not all SMT is relevant, but that which is -- 
pattern creation in general -- is.  If *you* had to enumerate the 
work most relevant for EBMT (learning and matching and applying 
patterns for translation, which work would you use?).

E
--
Eduard Hovy
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]            USC Information Sciences Institute
tel: 310-448-8731            4676 Admiralty Way
fax: 310-823-6714            Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
http://www.isi.edu/natural-language/nlp-at-isi.html
_______________________________________________
MT-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.computing.dcu.ie/mailman/listinfo/mt-list