--- Forwarded Message from Andrew Ross <[log in to unmask]> ---
>From: Andrew Ross <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "'Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum'" <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: #4911 Ergo's Patent Publishes
>Date: Thu, 18 Mar 1999 09:07:55 -0500
------------------
I also checked out the site, although I do neither NLP nor ESL in the
course of my job -- I'm assuming that this is the target market for
Ergo's parser. I tried a few of David Campbell's sentences -- for
example
"We will fight in the forest, in the valleys, in the hills."
and got the following suggestions for other constructions:
Past Progressive - We was fighting in the forest in the valleys
in the hills
Present Progressive - We am fighting in the forest in the valleys in the
hills
David's observations seem quite reasonable.
Question: What is LLTI's policy on advertising through the listserv?
And do Phil's posts on Ergo's parser qualify as such? I've certainly
recommended commercial products on the list, but I don't own the
companies nor do I get any consideration for doing so.
Andrew
Dr. Andrew F. Ross
Multimedia Language Lab
G-16 Puryear Hall
University of Richmond
Richmond, VA 23173
(804)287-6838
FAX: (804)287-6446
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From: LLTI-Editor [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 1999 2:11 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: #4911 Ergo's Patent Publishes
--- Forwarded Message from "Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D."
<[log in to unmask]> ---
>Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 17:35:57 -1000
>To: [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask],
[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask]
>From: "Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D." <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Ergo's Patent Publishes
------------------
The patent for the tools that create Ergo Linguistic
Technologiessí
software has just been published by the U.S. Patent
Office. Copies
of it can be obtained from them through the usual
channels. Many
have asked me to notify them when the patent is
published.
The patent description contains a theory of syntax that
is far
simpler and far more general than current theories, and
more
importantly, that makes software that individuals
working with
other theories can only dream of. For examples of the
Ergo
software go to http://www.ergo-ling.com.
Probably the strongest recommendation for reading this
patent and studying this theory is the software that it
can
create which can be seen at the Ergo web site. Those of
you in
industry may want to try and see if you can create
similar tools
and still beat the patent. We believe this is not
possible, but we
would encourage all to try in the spirit of good
sportsmanship.
In academia the very fact that we have a theory that
produces
better NLP tools than any other theory calls into
question the status of
all other theories of syntax. This is because every
theoretical mechanism
ever proposed for a theory of syntax (ours, Chomskyís,
or anyone elseís)
can, in principle, be implemented in a programming
language. Thus, the
clearest judge of the best theory of syntax is the
working software
that can be produced from it. I have in the past even
argued that until
such time as other theories can do as well or better
than we can in this
area, that the Ergo parser should be declared the
default standard for
computational linguistics both in academia and in
industry. (If anyone
can demonstrate why this should not be the case, I would
appreciate seeing
the argument). The Ergo parser provides tools and a
parser that can
significantly improve navigation and control devices and
question and
answer dialoging software as well as other areas of NLP
that require
grammatical analysis. All the demos at the Ergo site
are WIN95/8/NT
compatible. Get them and compare them to the software
made from other
theories (if they are capable of producing any at all).
Please do not take offense at these rather strongly
worded statements.
They are required because the soft sciences do not often
have to deal
with clear, incontrovertible evidence of the superiority
of other theories
or breakthroughs. In chemistry, for example, if someone
creates a better
and cheaper formula for a particular result (say the
treatment of a disease),
the new method is adopted and older ones are discarded
until such time
as evidence (e.g. the computer program in linguistics)
demonstrates
otherwise.
For a discussion and description of standards for the
evaluation
of parsers and parsing systems go to
http://www.vrml.org/WorkingGroups/NLP-ANIM. In
addition, the
Ergo web site provides examples and a parsing contest
for those
who would like to compare different parsing tools.
Hereís an even greater challenge: Get the patent and the
Ergo
software and then write some papers that explain why
working
software is not a criteria for judging a theory of
syntax. Or also
why the theory of syntax cannot produce the software
that we
have. It might also be interesting to demonstrate why
our theory
of syntax is not to be preferred over others and why
this theory of
syntax is flawed (in spite of the unique software
development
it offers).
Phil Bralich
Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D.
President and CEO
Ergo Linguistic Technologies
2800 Woodlawn Drive, Suite 175
Honolulu, HI 96822
Tel: (808)539-3920
Fax: (808)539-3924
[log in to unmask]
http://www.ergo-ling.com
Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D.
Ergo Linguistic Technologies
2800 Woodlawn Drive, Suite #175
Honolulu, HI 96822
fax: (808)539-3921
tel: (808)539-3924
|
