Re: EAGLESEVAL: A question from George Doddington.
But doesn't that mean that they HAVEN'T made progress on the underlying
levels?
Or are you saying that their parsers or ontologies get better and better
(judged I suppose by some measure other than system improvement), but
the overall result of the application doesn't improve?
So we'd say that they have to be wrong about what the appropriate
underlying technology really is?
Maghi
Eduard Hovy wrote:
> I can think of several places in which people make progress on underlying
> levels that have no real effect on the application level. For example,
> many groups have insisted that detailed syntactic parsing is the key,
> without demonstrating significant increases in output quality (or a
> significant decrease in speed). Ditto for the heavily semanticized
> Interlingua-based approaches, who can spend years building ontologies
> and fancy lexicons but still show no improvement on general text in the
> large. (I happen myself to believe that semantics is the right direction
> to go, but I do not believe that we will get adequately large semantic
> knowledge bases and/or lexicons using current manual techniques.)
>
> E
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Eduard Hovy
> email: hovy@isi.edu USC Information Sciences Institute
> tel: 310-822-1511 ext 731 4676 Admiralty Way
> fax: 310-823-6714 Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6695
> project homepage: http://www.isi.edu/natural-language/nlp-at-isi.html
--
Please note my new e-mail address (old address was king@divsun.unige.ch)
Maghi King | E-mail: Margaret.King@issco.unige.ch
ISSCO, University of Geneva | WWW: http://issco-www.unige.ch/
54 route des Acacias | Tel: +41/22/705 71 14
CH-1227 GENEVA (Switzerland) | Fax: +41/22/300 10 86