1 / 16

Implementing Patr

Implementing Patr. Bibliographic Note. Material in this presentation is based on Natural Language Processing in Prolog G. Gazdar and C. Mellish, Addison-Wesley 1989. Some Differences between Patr and Prolog. Prolog requires explicit variables Syntactic appearance of paths Grammar Rules

xuxa
Download Presentation

Implementing Patr

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Implementing Patr

  2. Bibliographic Note Material in this presentation is based on Natural Language Processing in Prolog G. Gazdar and C. Mellish, Addison-Wesley 1989.

  3. Some Differences between Patr and Prolog • Prolog requires explicit variables • Syntactic appearance of paths • Grammar Rules • Lexical Entries • Templates

  4. Rule Format R ule S ---> [NP, VP] :-S:cat === s,NP:cat === np,VP:cat === vp,S:head === VP:head,NP === VP:subcat:first.

  5. Operator Definitions op(500,xfy,:).op(500,xfx,--->).op(600,xfx,===). op(400,xfx,ule).op(500,xfx,ord).

  6. Definition of === • X===Y if and only if X and Y denote unifiable items. • We achieve this by saying that there is a third item that they both denote, i.e. X === Y :- denotes(X,Z), denotes(Y,Z).

  7. Definition of denote(X,Y). • We must take account of the fact that X can be one of three things: variable, atom, or path denotes(Var,Var) :- var(Var), !. denotes(Atom,Atom) :- atomic(Atom), !. denotes(V:Path, Value) :- pathval(V,Path,Value).

  8. Modifying pathval • Notice that the second argument to pathval need not be atomic. However, our existing definition for pathval assumes that it is. • We therefore add a clause that applies pathval applies to the first element of the path to obtain a second value, and then applies the rest of the path the new value.

  9. New Definition of pathval pathval([Attr:Val1 | X], Attr, Val2, X):- !,unify(Val1, Val2). pathval([AV | X], Attr, Val, [AV | Rem] ) :- pathval(X, Attr, Val, Rem). pathval(V1, Attr:Path, Value, Rem) :- !, pathval(V1,Attr,V2,Rem), pathval(V2,Path,Value,_).

  10. Lexical Entries W ord uther :- W:cat = n, W:head:trans = uther. • Uppercase can cause problems. • Use quote (e.g. ‘Uther’) if necessary.

  11. Connecting Words to Lexical Entries • Represent strings as difference lists. • Define a predicate that associates words in string with lexical entry. leaf(W, [Word|Rest], Rest) :- W ord Word. leaf(C,X,X) :- R ule C ---> [].

  12. In Other (DCG) Words …. leaf(FS)--> [Word], {FS ord Word}. leaf(FS) –-> [_ ule Dag --- []}

  13. Left Corner Recogniser • To recognise a string as an instance of FS1, we need to consider an initial leaf FS0 and prove that FS0 is a “left corner” of FS1, i.e. that FS0 is a category that would appear at the bottom left of a parse tree for it. rec(FS1) --> leaf(FS0), lc(FS0,FS1}.

  14. Definition of left cornerlc(FS1,FS2) • If the end of the string has been reached, then FS1 is a left corner of FS2 if they unify. • Otherwise there is a rule FS0 ---> [FS1|Rest] such that • The rest of the string is recognised as Rest • FS0 is a left corner of FS1

  15. Code for lc lc(FS1,FS2) --> [], {unify(FS1,FS2)}. lc(FS1,FS2) --> { R ule FS0 ---> [FS1 | Rest] }, recognise_rest(Rest), lc(FS0,FS2).

  16. recognise_rest recognise_rest( [ ] ) --> [ ]. recognise_rest([FS | FSs]) :- recognise(FS), recognise_rest(FSs).

More Related