| tech,17-2-P86-1038,bq | out in experimental research , these <term> | algorithms | </term> become quite complicated , and a | #14654 Although computational algorithms for unification of feature structures have been worked out in experimental research, thesealgorithms become quite complicated, and a more precise description of feature structures is desirable. |
| other,8-10-P86-1038,bq | <term> consistency problem </term> for <term> | formulas | </term> with <term> disjunctive values </term> | #14826 We have shown that the consistency problem forformulas with disjunctive values is NP-complete. |
| other,7-4-P86-1038,bq | <term> graphs </term> are , in fact , <term> | transition graphs | </term> for a special type of <term> deterministic | #14706 These graphs are, in fact,transition graphs for a special type of deterministic finite automaton. |
| other,26-5-P86-1038,bq | for values which are specified by <term> | disjunctions | </term> and <term> path values </term> embedded | #14743 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,1-9-P86-1038,bq | computationally inefficient . Our <term> | model | </term> allows a careful examination of the | #14806 Ourmodel allows a careful examination of the computational complexity of unification. |
| other,28-5-P86-1038,bq | specified by <term> disjunctions </term> and <term> | path values | </term> embedded within <term> disjunctions | #14745 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,32-5-P86-1038,bq | <term> path values </term> embedded within <term> | disjunctions | </term> . Our interpretation differs from | #14749 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,10-10-P86-1038,bq | </term> for <term> formulas </term> with <term> | disjunctive values | </term> is <term> NP-complete </term> . To deal | #14828 We have shown that the consistency problem for formulas withdisjunctive values is NP-complete. |
| tech,11-9-P86-1038,bq | <term> computational complexity </term> of <term> | unification | </term> . We have shown that the <term> consistency | #14816 Our model allows a careful examination of the computational complexity ofunification. |
| other,4-11-P86-1038,bq | NP-complete </term> . To deal with this <term> | complexity | </term> , we describe how <term> disjunctive | #14837 To deal with thiscomplexity, we describe how disjunctive values can be specified in a way which delays expansion to disjunctive normal form. |
| tech,19-11-P86-1038,bq | be specified in a way which delays <term> | expansion | </term> to <term> disjunctive normal form </term> | #14852 To deal with this complexity, we describe how disjunctive values can be specified in a way which delaysexpansion to disjunctive normal form. |
| other,15-7-P86-1038,bq | </term> , which can be used to simplify <term> | formulas | </term> . <term> Unification </term> is attractive | #14787 This logical model yields a calculus of equivalences, which can be used to simplifyformulas. |
| other,18-6-P86-1038,bq | <term> logical model </term> in place of a <term> | denotational semantics | </term> . This <term> logical model </term> yields | #14769 Our interpretation differs from that of Pereira and Shieber by using a logical model in place of adenotational semantics. |
| other,11-1-P86-1038,bq | of <term> features </term> to describe <term> | linguistic objects | </term> . Although <term> computational algorithms | #14634 Unification-based grammar formalisms use structures containing sets of features to describelinguistic objects. |
| other,0-1-P86-1038,bq | of the two <term> formalisms </term> . <term> | Unification-based grammar formalisms | </term> use structures containing sets of | #14623 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,0-8-P86-1038,bq | to simplify <term> formulas </term> . <term> | Unification | </term> is attractive , because of its generality | #14789 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,8-9-P86-1038,bq | allows a careful examination of the <term> | computational complexity | </term> of <term> unification </term> . We have | #14813 Our model allows a careful examination of thecomputational complexity of unification. |
| other,12-6-P86-1038,bq | of Pereira and Shieber by using a <term> | logical model | </term> in place of a <term> denotational semantics | #14763 Our interpretation differs from that of Pereira and Shieber by using alogical model in place of a denotational semantics. |
| other,9-11-P86-1038,bq | complexity </term> , we describe how <term> | disjunctive | </term> values can be specified in a way | #14842 To deal with this complexity, we describe howdisjunctive values can be specified in a way which delays expansion to disjunctive normal form. |
| other,15-3-P86-1038,bq | structures </term> can be regarded as <term> | logical formulas | </term> , and interpreted by sets of <term> | #14685 We have developed a model in which descriptions of feature structures can be regarded aslogical formulas, and interpreted by sets of directed graphs which satisfy them. |
