2,102 research outputs found

    A grammatical specification of human-computer dialogue

    Get PDF
    The Seeheim Model of human-computer interaction partitions an interactive application into a user-interface, a dialogue controller and the application itself. One of the formal techniques of implementing the dialogue controller is based on context-free grammars and automata. In this work, we modify an off-the-shelf compiler generator (YACC) to generate the dialogue controller. The dialogue controller is then integrated into the popular X-window system, to create an interactive-application generator. The actions of the user drive the automaton, which in turn controls the application

    BSML: A Binding Schema Markup Language for Data Interchange in Problem Solving Environments (PSEs)

    Full text link
    We describe a binding schema markup language (BSML) for describing data interchange between scientific codes. Such a facility is an important constituent of scientific problem solving environments (PSEs). BSML is designed to integrate with a PSE or application composition system that views model specification and execution as a problem of managing semistructured data. The data interchange problem is addressed by three techniques for processing semistructured data: validation, binding, and conversion. We present BSML and describe its application to a PSE for wireless communications system design

    SLR inference: An inference system for fixed-mode logic programs, based on SLR parsing

    Get PDF
    AbstractDefinite-clause grammars (DCGs) generalize context-free grammars in such a way that Prolog can be used as a parser in the presence of context-sensitive information. Prolog's proof procedure, however, is based on backtracking, which may be a source of inefficiency. Parsers for context-free grammars that use backtracking, for instance, were soon replaced by more efficient methods, such as LR parsers. This suggests incorporating the principles underlying LR parsing into a parser for grammars with context-sensitive information. We present a technique that applies a transformation to the program/grammar by adding leaves to the proof/parse trees and placing the contextual information in such leaves. An inference system is then easily obtained from an LR parser, since only the parts dealing with terminals (which appear at the leaves) must be modified. Although our method is restricted to programs with fixed modes, it may be preferable to DCGs under Prolog for some programs

    The quest for probabilistic parsing

    Get PDF

    The quest for probabilistic parsing

    Get PDF

    Data-Oriented Language Processing. An Overview

    Full text link
    During the last few years, a new approach to language processing has started to emerge, which has become known under various labels such as "data-oriented parsing", "corpus-based interpretation", and "tree-bank grammar" (cf. van den Berg et al. 1994; Bod 1992-96; Bod et al. 1996a/b; Bonnema 1996; Charniak 1996a/b; Goodman 1996; Kaplan 1996; Rajman 1995a/b; Scha 1990-92; Sekine & Grishman 1995; Sima'an et al. 1994; Sima'an 1995-96; Tugwell 1995). This approach, which we will call "data-oriented processing" or "DOP", embodies the assumption that human language perception and production works with representations of concrete past language experiences, rather than with abstract linguistic rules. The models that instantiate this approach therefore maintain large corpora of linguistic representations of previously occurring utterances. When processing a new input utterance, analyses of this utterance are constructed by combining fragments from the corpus; the occurrence-frequencies of the fragments are used to estimate which analysis is the most probable one. In this paper we give an in-depth discussion of a data-oriented processing model which employs a corpus of labelled phrase-structure trees. Then we review some other models that instantiate the DOP approach. Many of these models also employ labelled phrase-structure trees, but use different criteria for extracting fragments from the corpus or employ different disambiguation strategies (Bod 1996b; Charniak 1996a/b; Goodman 1996; Rajman 1995a/b; Sekine & Grishman 1995; Sima'an 1995-96); other models use richer formalisms for their corpus annotations (van den Berg et al. 1994; Bod et al., 1996a/b; Bonnema 1996; Kaplan 1996; Tugwell 1995).Comment: 34 pages, Postscrip
    corecore