El 2019-03-12 00:51, Aboelhamd Aly escribió:
Hi all,
This challenge was set for me by spectie, and it was to integrate the
ambiguous weighted rules program to apertium-transfer program.
Sorry Spectie for being late, I was unavailable for some days.
I think the challenge is finished now and the new command for our
program - also added to the help message for apertium-transfer - is :
apertium-transfer -a trules localeid models k [input [output]]
where -a for ambiguous, trules for chunker transfer file (.t1x),
localeid is ICU locale ID for the source language -I think there is a
way to make it figures the source language automatically- , models is
the yasmet trained models folder path , k is beam size for beam search
algorithm used to choose the best possible translation , input is the
input from lexical transfer and finally output is the output file path
or stdout id left empty and it has the program output which is the
ambiguous rules out chunks for the first stage.
- For the models being a destination for models folder , instead of a
file contains all the models. It is not a hard task to merge all the
models into one file through some script, though it would need a
little modification in the program manipulation with the models. So I
preferred to go on and learn how integrate the code into apertium's
and how to modify the makefile. I struggled a bit with the makefile as
I have a little exposure to it with more simpler makefiles. Also I
needed to modify our program a little bit to be able to integrate with
apertium.
- For preproc, I omitted it because we don't use it in our program,
just the .t1x file.
- For input being default instead of lexical transfer only, I didn't
manage to make it an option. because I will have then to use
transfer.cc with our code, which I found hard for the task of just
making the code work as it is. As I was supposed to make the transfer
object to do only the preBilingual without making the actual transfer.
But now I still have some doubts with your statement spectie saying
"using our coding style" as it was a little vague, or may be it was so
because I didn't ask about it , I wanted to make it work first then
ask about further information. I wondered If you meant to use the
transfer.cc file instead of our implemented one -which is a difficult
task because I think I need enough time to go deep and understand your
code and then be able to use it to achieve the same result, though it
would be very less buggy I think and also lots our program's bugs have
been solved throughout the past months - , or to make our
implementation code style like yours -which is a difficult task too
because your code is so professional compared to ours and I think also
it would take some time- , or finally to integrate our code with
transfer.cc and then make it used by apertium_transfer. Honestly, I
chose the easiest and fastest solution which is doing little
modification to my code and yours to make the program works.
I forked apertium core and then added and modified some files and it's
now ready in my forked repo, you can take a look here
https://github.com/aboelhamd/apertium
And now spectie, what's next ? Can we discuss further in the
documentation , thoughts and questions I wrote in the past week or two
, or you still have some modifications or tasks for me to do ?
Thanks and sorry for my verbose message.
Hi Aboelhamd,
Thanks for your email. Could you do a couple of things that will help us
to review your code more easily:
1) Make your changes in a branch
2) Make a pull request
I'll try and get back with further comments shortly.
Greetings from Kyrgyzstan!
Fran
_______________________________________________
Apertium-stuff mailing list
Apertium-stuff@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/apertium-stuff
