On 12 May 2013 20:20, Per Tunedal <[email protected]> wrote:
> 1. Wouldn't it be more adequate to begin with finding the right word,
> rather than trying to fix it afterwards with a lexical selection module?
> Yes, this is a new work flow with a disambiguator, rather than a tagger,
> choosing the right word and indirectly deciding part of speech. (Rather
> than the opposite).
Yes, that would be better, and if I get the GSoC project then I'll be
working to enable a flow like that.
> Or alternatively:
>
Why alternatively? You can do both to even greater effect.
> 2. Why not collect all possible translation options and evaluate them,
> choosing the translation that seems most meaningful or fluent?
> (Something like what's done in statistical translation by weighting the
> translations by the language model.)
>
GrammarSoft's GramTrans has experimented with that, and while it helps for
fringe phrases, it just can't come close to the result yielded from someone
who knows the language writing rules.
BTW I don't like the idea of using a constraint grammar. I hope
> something more automatic could be invented.
Automatic and High Quality are somewhat opposites. If you want the highest
quality, you need to hand-write rules. Constraint Grammar and other rule
based systems are proven to lead to very high quality, but it takes longer
to develop.
-- Tino Didriksen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Learn Graph Databases - Download FREE O'Reilly Book
"Graph Databases" is the definitive new guide to graph databases and
their applications. This 200-page book is written by three acclaimed
leaders in the field. The early access version is available now.
Download your free book today! http://p.sf.net/sfu/neotech_d2d_may
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
