Mike: Background - NeuGen results for AMR which benefit from paired training. Konstas & Goodman experimented with MRS and Redwoods, adding accommodation of NER handling and compressed variable properties, among other steps.
The MRS approach achieved higher BLEU score, but not directly comparable: more MRS gold data, MRS compositional, MRS has no coref resolution, parsing/generation much more closely constrained with MRS than with AMR
Pitching DELPH-IN resources is more difficult, partly because the metrics for evaluation are not designed for us, and because we lack full robustness, etc, so we have to add caveats and hedges.
Why not push DELPH-IN resources as annotated data, rather than as parsing methodology, following the recent success of SDP (http://sdp.delph-in.net)?
Is such a shift useful? If so, what could be done for support? E.g. package scripts for inspection, transformation; simpler train/dev/test split; compatibility with external tools (NER, tokenization); decrease learning curve of data
Stephan: Very sympathetic. Extreme simplification to bilexical dependencies has been successful for bringing in consumers. Semantics is currently trendy, a good opportunity for us. Caution on MRS/AMR comparison: parsing/generation much more closely constrained with MRS than with AMR. Better support for aligning tokenization.
Francis: Good that people are using the data. Our experiments with generation were sometimes awkward (system crashes, etc). People want to produce more data in new genres, so should recommend preferred configuration for parsing new text. What are the best parameters for parsing with the ERG, JACY, etc.? These recommendations will need to be maintained by the grammarians as the grammar changes. We want to enable the best possible comparisons.
Woodley: I'm sympathetic to proposal; good to produce training data. But I'm not in favor of focusing only on being an annotated data production house. It would be better to extend our range of "products" rather than shifting focus.
Mike: We have to deal with lack of full coverage: our solution seems incomplete. We want to accommodate people not interested in linguistics.
Emily: We might lead with the data, but want to also promote the grammars that give rise to these annotations. The buzz at this year's ACL: we need more linguistics.
Stephan: What are our DELPH-IN goals? Let's promote what we do well (output representations) perhaps as a means to draw people in. Gateway drug.
Olga: This is part of a bigger question about the quality of academic software: what should be the priority of these usability desiderata, competing with demands on time of PhD students and researchers? We do reach academic goals more quickly if we maximize reuse of resources. So how much time should PhD students spend on packaging? Probably more (except for Mike).
Emily: We need richer documentation on the wiki for how to get started and get best results with our resources.
Francis: Liling suggests a large-scale repository for open-access data where we can register: Zenodo. Or maybe Github.
Stephan: But Github is not open-source.
Francis: Okay, but we may want to associate our resources with ISBN for citations, and Zenodo would enable this.
Stephan: We did this for SDP effort, putting the data in an LDC (Linguistic Data Consoritium) repository (because some of the resources were not open-source), plus open-source subset in LinDat for stable repository. It helps to have side-by-side DELPH-IN resources with those from other platforms.
Luis: We should add a convenient `front door' to invite people in, less overwhelming than DELPH-IN wiki. Fewer options, but the right ones, at least to start. Say, the top ten things needed to get started.
Chris: More curation is needed to expose the significant expertise and resources lurking in the DELPH-IN wiki.
Stephan: We should continue to foster internal communication on our wiki, but add more effort for the "shop window" for external communication. See the SDP web page: downloaded 30 times this year, and getting relatively wide use. MRSs are there, but not foregrounded; a simpler representation is easier to start with.
Emily: Also have www.delph-in.net web pages, more external-facing, but we need to update them for current work/results. We should add links to quick-start guides.
Berthold: I have used ERG for teaching; it would be nice to also have a French grammar. It's desirable to get requests for richer linguistic views of parse trees via the web demo, including feature structures. We could expose more information depth for some users.
Luis: An AVM display on the web demos would be useful for linguists (including students). What level of detail?
Berthold: There are consumers who want more like what we offer for analyses.
Mike: This discussion is more focused on non-linguist consumers.
Berthold: Yes, but we should also give attention to the linguists.
Guy: Two different forms of packaging, one for linguists, one for engineers.
Luis: For proselytizing, we should focus on new linguists, not on generative grammarians ("old linguists").
Mike: The goal of pyDelphin is to minimize dependencies on processing engines, so consumers can focus on using the data. The platform will also support requests from Windows.
Ping: Linguists tend to formulate analyses of phenomena in a particular theory, so it can be hard to communicate our analyses across those frameworks (e.g. "subject-verb agreement" vs "spec-head agreement").
Lars: It has been difficult to attract typologists and descriptive linguists without special effort.
Berthold: But there is some openness.
Stephan: Where are these new linguists? Exposure to HPSG? We did teach GE at ESSLLI.
Emily: And we did a tutorial at HPSG this summer. Slides on the web.
Francis: The goal of external accessibility is important. Packaging is importnat. Grammars should be easier to use. We need different tasks to invite linguists vs. engineers. Our grammars should be easier to use.