--- 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