| model,1-7-P86-1038,ak | denotational semantics </term> . This <term> | logical model | </term> yields a <term> calculus of equivalences | #16956 Thislogical model yields a calculus of equivalences, which can be used to simplify formulas. | |
| model,1-9-P86-1038,ak | computationally inefficient . Our <term> | model | </term> allows a careful examination of the | #16989 Ourmodel allows a careful examination of the computational complexity of unification. | |
| model,12-6-P86-1038,ak | of Pereira and Shieber by using a <term> | logical model | </term> in place of a <term> denotational semantics | #16946 Our interpretation differs from that of Pereira and Shieber by using alogical model in place of a denotational semantics. | |
| model,4-3-P86-1038,ak | is desirable . We have developed a <term> | model | </term> in which descriptions of <term> feature | #16857 We have developed amodel in which descriptions of feature structures can be regarded as logical formulas, and interpreted by sets of directed graphs which satisfy them. | |
| other,0-1-P86-1038,ak | of the two <term> formalisms </term> . <term> | Unification-based grammar formalisms | </term> use <term> structures </term> containing | #16806 We then turn to a discussion comparing the linguistic expressiveness of the two formalisms.Unification-based grammar formalisms use structures containing sets of features to describe linguistic objects. | |
| other,1-5-P86-1038,ak | deterministic finite automaton </term> . This <term> | semantics | </term> for <term> feature structures </term> | #16901 Thissemantics for feature structures extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [11], by providing an interpretation for values which are specified by disjunctions and path values embedded within disjunctions. | |
| other,11-1-P86-1038,ak | of <term> features </term> to describe <term> | linguistic objects | </term> . Although <term> computational algorithms | #16817 Unification-based grammar formalisms use structures containing sets of features to describelinguistic objects. | |
| other,18-6-P86-1038,ak | <term> logical model </term> in place of a <term> | denotational semantics | </term> . This <term> logical model </term> yields | #16952 Our interpretation differs from that of Pereira and Shieber by using a logical model in place of adenotational semantics. | |
| other,21-11-P86-1038,ak | in a way which delays expansion to <term> | disjunctive normal form | </term> . Currently several <term> grammatical | #17037 To deal with this complexity, we describe how disjunctive values can be specified in a way which delays expansion todisjunctive normal form. | |
| other,26-5-P86-1038,ak | for values which are specified by <term> | disjunctions | </term> and <term> path values </term> embedded | #16926 This semantics for feature structures extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [11], by providing an interpretation for values which are specified bydisjunctions and path values embedded within disjunctions. | |
| other,28-2-P86-1038,ak | and a more precise description of <term> | feature structures | </term> is desirable . We have developed | #16848 Although computational algorithms for unification of feature structures have been worked out in experimental research, these algorithms become quite complicated, and a more precise description offeature structures is desirable. | |
| other,28-5-P86-1038,ak | specified by <term> disjunctions </term> and <term> | path values | </term> embedded within <term> disjunctions | #16928 This semantics for feature structures extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [11], by providing an interpretation for values which are specified by disjunctions andpath values embedded within disjunctions. | |
| other,3-5-P86-1038,ak | </term> . This <term> semantics </term> for <term> | feature structures | </term> extends the ideas of Pereira and | #16903 This semantics forfeature structures extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [11], by providing an interpretation for values which are specified by disjunctions and path values embedded within disjunctions. | |
| other,32-5-P86-1038,ak | <term> path values </term> embedded within <term> | disjunctions | </term> . Our interpretation differs from | #16932 This semantics for feature structures extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [11], by providing an interpretation for values which are specified by disjunctions and path values embedded withindisjunctions. | |
| other,4-1-P86-1038,ak | Unification-based grammar formalisms </term> use <term> | structures | </term> containing sets of <term> features </term> | #16810 Unification-based grammar formalisms usestructures containing sets of features to describe linguistic objects. | |
| other,4-11-P86-1038,ak | is NP-complete . To deal with this <term> | complexity | </term> , we describe how <term> disjunctive | #17020 To deal with thiscomplexity, we describe how disjunctive values can be specified in a way which delays expansion to disjunctive normal form. | |
| other,5-10-P86-1038,ak | unification </term> . We have shown that the <term> | consistency problem | </term> for <term> formulas </term> with disjunctive | #17006 We have shown that theconsistency problem for formulas with disjunctive values is NP-complete. | |
| other,8-1-P86-1038,ak | structures </term> containing sets of <term> | features | </term> to describe <term> linguistic objects | #16814 Unification-based grammar formalisms use structures containing sets offeatures to describe linguistic objects. | |
| other,8-9-P86-1038,ak | allows a careful examination of the <term> | computational complexity | </term> of <term> unification </term> . We have | #16996 Our model allows a careful examination of thecomputational complexity of unification. | |
| other,9-11-P86-1038,ak | complexity </term> , we describe how <term> | disjunctive values | </term> can be specified in a way which delays | #17025 To deal with this complexity, we describe howdisjunctive values can be specified in a way which delays expansion to disjunctive normal form. |
