| tech,1-2-P86-1038,ak | linguistic objects </term> . Although <term> | computational algorithms | </term> for <term> unification of feature structures | #16821 Althoughcomputational algorithms for unification of feature structures have been worked out in experimental research, these algorithms become quite complicated, and a more precise description of feature structures is desirable. | |
| tech,11-9-P86-1038,ak | <term> computational complexity </term> of <term> | unification | </term> . We have shown that the <term> consistency | #16999 Our model allows a careful examination of the computational complexity ofunification. | |
| tech,23-3-P86-1038,ak | </term> , and interpreted by sets of <term> | directed graphs | </term> which satisfy them . These <term> graphs | #16876 We have developed a model in which descriptions of feature structures can be regarded as logical formulas, and interpreted by sets ofdirected graphs which satisfy them. | |
| 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. | |
| tech,15-7-P86-1038,ak | </term> , which can be used to simplify <term> | formulas | </term> . <term> Unification </term> is attractive | #16970 This logical model yields a calculus of equivalences, which can be used to simplifyformulas. | |
| 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,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,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. | |
| 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. | |
| 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,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. | |
| 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. | |
| 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,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,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. | |
| tech,5-7-P86-1038,ak | <term> logical model </term> yields a <term> | calculus of equivalences | </term> , which can be used to simplify <term> | #16960 This logical model yields acalculus of equivalences, which can be used to simplify formulas. | |
| tech,0-8-P86-1038,ak | to simplify <term> formulas </term> . <term> | Unification | </term> is attractive , because of its generality | #16972 This logical model yields a calculus of equivalences, which can be used to simplify formulas.Unification is attractive, because of its generality, but it is often computationally inefficient. | |
| 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,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. | |
| 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. |
