2009
DOI: 10.1007/s10849-009-9112-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

PGF: A Portable Run-time Format for Type-theoretical Grammars

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2009
2009
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
6
2

Relationship

3
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 18 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 15 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The time required to compile modified grammars makes Bison entirely unsuitable for applications where the grammar can change dynamically. Even if Bison were changed to allow loading a different LR table at runtime, it would still take 11 times longer than DynGenPar to process our fairly small two-layered grammar, and we expect the We also benchmarked our support for PGF [4] grammar files produced by the Grammatical Framework (GF) [22,23] against two PGF runtimes provided by the GF project (we used a snapshot of the repository from February 24): the production runtime written in Haskell and the new experimental runtime written in C. As an example grammar, we used GF's Phrasebook example, which is the one explicitly documented as being supported by the current version of GF's C runtime, with the sample sentence See you in the best Italian restaurant tomorrow!, a valid sentence in the Phrasebook grammar. (We also tried parsing with the full English resource grammar, but DynGenPar would not scale to such huge grammars and did not terminate in a reasonable time.)…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…The time required to compile modified grammars makes Bison entirely unsuitable for applications where the grammar can change dynamically. Even if Bison were changed to allow loading a different LR table at runtime, it would still take 11 times longer than DynGenPar to process our fairly small two-layered grammar, and we expect the We also benchmarked our support for PGF [4] grammar files produced by the Grammatical Framework (GF) [22,23] against two PGF runtimes provided by the GF project (we used a snapshot of the repository from February 24): the production runtime written in Haskell and the new experimental runtime written in C. As an example grammar, we used GF's Phrasebook example, which is the one explicitly documented as being supported by the current version of GF's C runtime, with the sample sentence See you in the best Italian restaurant tomorrow!, a valid sentence in the Phrasebook grammar. (We also tried parsing with the full English resource grammar, but DynGenPar would not scale to such huge grammars and did not terminate in a reasonable time.)…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, our implementation already supports features such as incremental addition of PMCFG rules which are essential for our application, which are not implemented in Angelov's current code and which may or may not be easy to add to it. Our parser also supports importing the compiled PGF [4] files from GF, allowing to reuse the rest of the framework. When doing so, as evidenced in section 6, it reaches a comparable performance.…”
Section: State Of the Artmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Portable Grammar Format (PGF, Angelov et al, 2008) is a low-level format to which GF grammars are compiled. The PGF Web Service loads PGF files from disk, and uses them to serve client requests.…”
Section: Portable Grammar Format (Pgf)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In this multilingual setting, having different pre-or post-processors for the different languages will defeat the purpose of having a single multilingual grammar. GF grammars are distributed in a portable format (Angelov et al, 2010) which can be deployed in different environments ranging from web servers and desktop translation systems to mobile devices. The virtual machine for GF (Angelov, 2011) is also developed as a platform independent software.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%