Replied inline...

On 24 January 2018 at 15:07, Edward Garrett <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> 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.
>

Sure, from CoNNL-U to CG-3 is easy, though yielding an ugly result for the
general case. I assumed the original question was the other way.



> 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.
>

This is where nobody can agree. VISL uses ALLUPPER for part of speech, <>
for secondary. Apertium has no patterns. Giellatekno has several prefixes
that denote secondary tags, with the remainder being primary. Etc. The only
thing everyone agrees on is using prefix @ for primary mapping tags,
because that was enforced by older CG implementations.

So naming conventions are out the window - has to be list based. Those
lists could be in the grammar, or supplied to cg-conv somehow.

-- Tino Didriksen

-- 
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.

Reply via email to