calligra-devel Digest, Vol 19, Issue 67

[C. Boemann]

On Tuesday 15 May 2012 00:39:47 Garima Joshi wrote:
> Hi,
> I went through the paper and few more related articles. And as Boemann
> already mentioned, many of the features are under ongoing work in
> link-grammar which is undergoing research and implementation in OpenCog NLP
> subsystem.
> It already uses probabilistic approach
> http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/project/link/pub/www/papers/ps/gram3gr
> am.pdf but the APP/EPP and distorted treebank methods described in the
> paper promises better error detection and many shortcomings of
> link-grammar like inability to handle quotations, long-run sentences etc.
> are resolved here.
> 
> So, my views are if we want a really good parser we can work on
> link-grammar parser as base and we can take help from link-grammar people
> also. There are few more available parsers which can be used for help like
> maximum entropy based statistical parser like Charniak & Bikel parser.
> 
> Or the other option can be we can implement link-grammar parser in our
> grammarchecker plugin and as link-grammar will improve, accordingly user
> can update his/her version of link-grammar. We can still help to improve
> the parser.
> 
> I also went through a paper regarding LanguageTool which is a rule-based
> grammar checker
> http://www.danielnaber.de/languagetool/download/style_and_grammar_checker.p
> df it has an advantage that is, it is available in many languages. Still I
> think link-grammar is better.
> 
> I need to read the paper a few more times to understand it completely.
> Waiting for suggestions and opinions.
> 
> :)
> 
I think you are doing a great job. Just read it again and see if you learn 
anything new that changes your mind. But my instinct from what you write will 
be to use link-grammar as a plugin, and if needed help them out but otherwise 
just benefit from their work.

Thanks so far :)