Handling syntax separately from semantics and pragmatics is hacky and non-AGI-ish ... but, makes it easier to get NLP systems working at a primitive level in a non-embodied context
Operator grammar mixes syntax and semantics which is philosophically correct, but makes things harder Link grammar is purely syntactic, which is philosophically wrong, but makes things implementationally easier I have worked a lot with the link parser and it is pretty good for a rule-based statistical parser. But this kind of NLP framework has intrinsic limitations. The way we intend to ultimately do NLP in Novamente has more in common with operator grammar ... but we have used the link parser for commercial NLP projects, because it (sorta) works... -- Ben G On 5/21/07, 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 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
