>1. When Andrew Slater and Nick Youd worked on a parser for Infovox, they
>chose what they described as a relatively flat system, and used Bachenko
>and Fitzpatrick (1990) Computational Linguistics 16(3) as a springboard.
>Are you also going for a flat structure (not as rich as for recognition,
>e.g.), or are there reasons not to?
What I have on the web page is a description of the formal grammar my parser
uses. It is not necessarily what is going to be put in the database as the
syntactic description for the project. I don't see why we shouldn't use a
flat structure if people agree that it is sufficient for the project.
I've been wondering if we should try to be compatible with other schemes
such as MARSEC, which is annotated with a very flat structure together with
the LOB tagset. However, my experience with SpeechMaker is that a rich
scheme, such as the one described in my web page, is a useful resource to
draw on if ever the synthesiser needs good clausal and inter-phrasal
descriptions.
Alex