--- 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)
Link grammar has a website and online demo at http://www.link.cs.cmu.edu/link/submit-sentence-4.html But as I posted earlier, it gives the same parse for: - I ate pizza with pepperoni. - I ate pizza with a friend. - I ate pizza with a fork. which shows that you can't separate syntax and semantics. Many grammars have this problem. Operator grammar seems to me to be a lot closer to the way natural language actually works. It includes semantics. The basic constraints (dependency, likelihood, and reduction) are all learnable. It might have gotten less attention because its main proponent, Zellig Harris, died in 1992, just before it became feasible to test the grammar in computational models (e.g. perplexity or text compression). Also, none of his publications are online, but you can find reviews of his books at http://www.dmi.columbia.edu/zellig/ -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- 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
