2011/7/5 Keld Jørn Simonsen <[email protected]>: > On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 01:04:40PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: >> 2011/7/5 Keld Jørn Simonsen <[email protected]>: >> > On Sun, Jul 03, 2011 at 10:21:55PM +0100, Jimmy O'Regan wrote: >> >> 2011/7/3 Keld Jørn Simonsen <[email protected]>: >> >> > So that person actually understood what I meant the first time - good to >> >> > know that there is at least one person (plus my mother) that understands >> >> > me - although the understanding may crumble over time. >> >> >> >> Context is wonderful. I did say it wouldn't be done in a hurry, and >> >> nobody else has expressed an interest in it since then. If you want to >> >> try yourself, take a look at TaggerWord::discardOnAmbiguity in >> >> tagger_word.cc, otherwise you'll have to continue waiting. >> > >> > Yes, you said: >> > >> >> Without retraining the tagger, there's no way to do that. There are >> >> preference rules, but those only filter on tags. I think it might be >> >> useful to extend the tagger to have a mechanism to make certain tag >> >> choices for specific lemmas, and not too difficult to implement, based >> >> on the existing preference rules, but it's not going to be done in a >> >> hurry. >> > >> > I put emphasis on "not to difficult to implement". What are your >> > thoughts? Then I could have a look. I was actually thinking of some more >> > complex things also, and if they would be almost as easy to implement, >> > then I would go for the full monty. >> > >> > My further ideas were: >> > - discardOnAmbiguity based on allowed grammatical rules >> > - discardOnAmbiguity based on number of appearances >> > - discardOnAmbiguity based on shortest distance for a wordnet like graph >> > for the surrounding say 10 words. >> >> You've taken what was meant to be a simple idea and made it extremely >> complicated. There are a handful of people on this list who use CG, >> maybe you should talk to one of them. It might do what you want. > > OK, who are you thinking of?
Francis usually relentlessly promotes it. I'm surprised he hasn't chimed in by now. -- <Sefam> Are any of the mentors around? <jimregan> yes, they're the ones trolling you ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ All of the data generated in your IT infrastructure is seriously valuable. Why? It contains a definitive record of application performance, security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense. http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-d2d-c2 _______________________________________________ Apertium-stuff mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
