| model,1-7-P86-1038,ak | This <term> logical model </term> yields a <term> calculus of equivalences </term> , which can be used to simplify <term> formulas </term> . | #16956 Thislogical model yields a calculus of equivalences, which can be used to simplify formulas. | |
| model,1-9-P86-1038,ak | Our <term> model </term> allows a careful examination of the <term> computational complexity </term> of <term> unification </term> . | #16989 Ourmodel allows a careful examination of the computational complexity of unification. | |
| model,12-6-P86-1038,ak | Our interpretation differs from that of Pereira and Shieber by using a <term> logical model </term> in place of a <term> denotational semantics </term> . | #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 | We have developed a <term> model </term> in which descriptions of <term> feature structures </term> can be regarded as <term> logical formulas </term> , and interpreted by sets of <term> directed graphs </term> which satisfy them . | #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 | We then turn to a discussion comparing the <term> linguistic expressiveness </term> of the two <term> formalisms </term> . <term> Unification-based grammar formalisms </term> use <term> structures </term> containing sets of <term> features </term> to describe <term> linguistic objects </term> . | #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 | This <term> semantics </term> for <term> feature structures </term> extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [ 11 ] , by providing an interpretation for values which are specified by <term> disjunctions </term> and <term> path values </term> embedded within <term> disjunctions </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 | <term> Unification-based grammar formalisms </term> use <term> structures </term> containing sets of <term> features </term> to describe <term> linguistic objects </term> . | #16817 Unification-based grammar formalisms use structures containing sets of features to describelinguistic objects. | |
| other,18-6-P86-1038,ak | Our interpretation differs from that of Pereira and Shieber by using a <term> logical model </term> in place of a <term> denotational semantics </term> . | #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 | To deal with this <term> complexity </term> , we describe how <term> disjunctive values </term> can be specified in a way which delays expansion to <term> disjunctive normal form </term> . | #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 | This <term> semantics </term> for <term> feature structures </term> extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [ 11 ] , by providing an interpretation for values which are specified by <term> disjunctions </term> and <term> path values </term> embedded within <term> disjunctions </term> . | #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 | Although <term> computational algorithms </term> for <term> unification of feature structures </term> have been worked out in experimental research , these <term> algorithms </term> become quite complicated , and a more precise description of <term> feature structures </term> is desirable . | #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 | This <term> semantics </term> for <term> feature structures </term> extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [ 11 ] , by providing an interpretation for values which are specified by <term> disjunctions </term> and <term> path values </term> embedded within <term> disjunctions </term> . | #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 | This <term> semantics </term> for <term> feature structures </term> extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [ 11 ] , by providing an interpretation for values which are specified by <term> disjunctions </term> and <term> path values </term> embedded within <term> disjunctions </term> . | #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 | This <term> semantics </term> for <term> feature structures </term> extends the ideas of Pereira and Shieber [ 11 ] , by providing an interpretation for values which are specified by <term> disjunctions </term> and <term> path values </term> embedded within <term> disjunctions </term> . | #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 | <term> Unification-based grammar formalisms </term> use <term> structures </term> containing sets of <term> features </term> to describe <term> linguistic objects </term> . | #16810 Unification-based grammar formalisms usestructures containing sets of features to describe linguistic objects. | |
| other,4-11-P86-1038,ak | To deal with this <term> complexity </term> , we describe how <term> disjunctive values </term> can be specified in a way which delays expansion to <term> disjunctive normal form </term> . | #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 | We have shown that the <term> consistency problem </term> for <term> formulas </term> with disjunctive values is NP-complete . | #17006 We have shown that theconsistency problem for formulas with disjunctive values is NP-complete. | |
| other,8-1-P86-1038,ak | <term> Unification-based grammar formalisms </term> use <term> structures </term> containing sets of <term> features </term> to describe <term> linguistic objects </term> . | #16814 Unification-based grammar formalisms use structures containing sets offeatures to describe linguistic objects. | |
| other,8-9-P86-1038,ak | Our <term> model </term> allows a careful examination of the <term> computational complexity </term> of <term> unification </term> . | #16996 Our model allows a careful examination of thecomputational complexity of unification. | |
| other,9-11-P86-1038,ak | To deal with this <term> complexity </term> , we describe how <term> disjunctive values </term> can be specified in a way which delays expansion to <term> disjunctive normal form </term> . | #17025 To deal with this complexity, we describe howdisjunctive values can be specified in a way which delays expansion to disjunctive normal form. |
