> > > This is also why there is no CoNLL-U converter directly in CG-3. CoNLL-U > mandates many tag patterns and orders that CG-3 simply doesn't care about > or even knows about - I can't make a general-purpose converter, because > each parsing system wants it differently. > > can you elaborate on this? while everything you said from the CG-3 side makes sense to me, just looking at the CoNLL-U format ( http://universaldependencies.org/format.html), it seems like one could make a handy converter which just made some choices about how to map the CoNLL-U columns into CG-3 tags. for example, features could be mapped to Name=Value, i.e. Case=Num, and so on. i don't know whether this would be a "general purpose converter" but if it took any CoNLL-U input and produced a plausible CG-3 output, then it would be useful in my book.
as for going in the reverse direction, i agree it would be problematic. i suppose since the order of the tags and their internal composition is irrelevant in CG-3, the tags might easily get swapped around and screw things up. that said, perhaps there could be some guidelines: if you name your tags in such and such a way, and choose from this inventory of tag naming conventions, then you can convert your CG-3 file to CoNLL-U using this script. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Constraint Grammar" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/constraint-grammar. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
