Hello all,
Coming back to Andy's questions:
1. Can papers on EBMT succeed in getting published (especially in
non-expert, i.e. MT-specific, conferences) without making direct
comparisons to SMT?
Certainly one giant step in this direction would be made if people doing
SMT of the phras
o: Andy Way <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Mt-list] Where is MT at today?
>
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for your post to the list.
>
> A few comments:
>
> > I think this is my main concern: SMT is very well (and deserve
Hi Andy,
Thanks for your post to the list.
A few comments:
> I think this is my main concern: SMT is very well (and deservedly so)
> established nowadays as the main way to do MT. Unless you're an MT
> person, you'd think that it was the _only_ way to do MT, as here.
I would say:
1. Can SMT cu
I'm going to try very hard not to make this sound like a rant. Rather, I
hope the following (probably long-winded) observations may seed an
interesting debate as to where we are these days w.r.t. corpus-based MT,
and MT in general.
As many of you know, I submit to and review for many NLP and
(
