Since I contributed a fair bit of the thinking to that parsing work I think
I'm entitled to have a look at the final report!
Could I suggest that you send me a copy, and that I undertake to summarise
what I consider to be the knowledge component. I could then send my summary
to Bengt with explanation and get his approval before circulating it to
group? I could scrat together most of the info from notes etc, but the
report would help.
Thanks,
Jill
> Not sending this to prosynth for threading, since Jill's use of that route
> failed (eye of needle blocked?)
>
> Alex: If it's any help, as far as I remember from my distinctly hands-off
> supervision of Andrew and Nick's work, they ended up with something quite
> a bit richer than MARSEC, and I think they did their own tagger, so
> presumably they thought the LOB one was deficient in some way. Jill has
> just asked me about the status of their final report, which I have a copy
> of. Our contract with IVX was that the knoweldge was ours, but the
> detailed solutions were not. I;ve suggested that, since Jill was actively
> involved in some of Nick and ANdrew's work, she work out how to legally
> use her knowledge. She'll be getting back to me/us on that. I'm happy to
> release the report if it's legal to do so, but not otherwise of course. If
> Jill decides we can;t use the report, we could legally pick Nick and
> Andrew's brains.
>
> Jill: If you end up unclear whether to read the report or not, I think
> Bengt would be quite happy to get a request from you.
>
> hope this is helpful
>
> Sarah
>
> On Mon, 6 Oct 1997, Alex Chengyu Fang wrote:
>
>
>> At 11:51 AM 6/10/97, Sarah Hawkins wrote:
>>
>> >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
>>
>>
>>
>