Newsgroups: comp.ai.nat-lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!bcstec!charlotte!usenet
From: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com (Richard Wojcik)
Subject: Re: GPSG as introductory grammar formalism
Message-ID: <DD0Gy5.FGL@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com>
Sender: usenet@grace.rt.cs.boeing.com
Reply-To: rwojcik@atc.boeing.com
Organization: Research & Technology
References: <CHRISBR.95Aug7105713@blair.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 8 Aug 1995 21:27:40 GMT
Lines: 20



In article <CHRISBR.95Aug7105713@blair.cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, chrisbr@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Chris Brew) writes:
>   Can anybody please give me any good reason for using GPSG as an
>   introductory grammar formalism for computational linguists? I mean,
>   the grammar formalism is somewhat complicated and some people even
>   think, that GPSG is the worst choice, cause the parsing seems to be np
>   hard. And so the GPSG think seems to irrelevant for computational
>   linguists, cause they want to implement something like that on a
>   computer.
>...
>Finally, GPSG has formed the basis of several decent computer systems, 
>including the Alvey Natural Language Toolkit, and the MT system built
>in Berlin by Christa Hauenschild's group. So it can't be completely
>terrible as a basis for computational artefacts. 

Right.  Don't forget Boeing's Simplified English Checker.  That is based on GPSG.



