Compiling Grammar-based Speech Application ... - CiteSeerX

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14 Introduction Figure 10. A graphical representation of the pizza order order (pizza two large [ham, cheese ]), drawn using instructions generated by the concrete syntax in Figure 9. 5.2 Contribution I designed and implemented the demonstration system, including the grammars, and wrote the sections about the proof-of-concept implementation and related work. 5.3 Publication This paper was presented at DIALOR’05, Ninth Workshop on the Semantics and Pragmatics of Dialogue, Nancy, France, June 9-11 2005. 6 Paper III: A Pattern for Almost Compositional Functions The paper “A Pattern for Almost Compositional Functions” introduces a method for simplifying a common class of functions over rich tree-like data types, such as abstract syntax trees in compilers or natural language applications. The method uses a type-specific traversal function, which can be automatically generated from the definition of the data type. This method helps reduce the amount of repetitive traversal code in programs which process rich tree structures. Dialogue managers and semantic transfer engines process the abstract syntax representation of the input in various ways. There is a significant set of such transformations what are only concerned with some of the constructs in the often quite rich abstract syntax. This paper describes a way to express such transformations succinctly.
6. Paper III: A Pattern for Almost Compositional Functions 15 uniqueToppings :: Tree a → Tree a uniqueToppings t = case t of pizza n s ts → pizza n s (nub ts) → composOp uniqueToppings t Figure 11. Haskell-like pseudo-code for an abstract syntax transformation function which removes duplicate toppings from terms in the abstract syntax in Figure 5. The nub function removes duplicate elements from a list. 6.1 An Example Figure 11 shows a small example function which transforms abstract syntax terms. It goes through the term, removing any duplicate toppings in pizza orders. For example, the order pizza two large [ham, cheese, ham ] (“two large pizzas with ham and cheese and ham”) is transformed to pizza two large [ham, cheese ] (“two large pizzas with ham and cheese”). The composOp function, which is the topic of this paper, is used to avoid specifying what the function does for terms other than pizza orders. In this small example, not a lot of code is saved, but in a realistic system with many abstract syntax constructors, the code savings can be very large. 6.2 Contribution Aarne Ranta used a first version of composOp in the GF implementation. He then generalized this to constructive type theory and wrote a first version of the paper, describing the single data-type Haskell versions of composOp and composM , and a type family version of composOp in Agda. I extended this first version to the full paper included here. Aarne’s original paper represents about one fifth of the text of the final version. My contributions include support for composOp over type families in extended Haskell, the general compos function, the library of functions which use compos, the Java Visitor version of the pattern, the description of the relationship to applicative functors, including some identities with proofs, and descriptions of the relationships to generic programming in Haskell, tree types in type theory, traversals in objectoriented programming and the Nanopass framework. 6.3 Publication This thesis includes a somewhat extended version of a paper presented at ICFP 2006, the 11th ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional Programming, Portland, Oregon, September 18-20, 2006.
Page 1 and 2: Thesis for the Degree of Licentiate
Page 3: Abstract It is easy to imagine mach
Page 6 and 7: 4 Generating Context-free Grammars
Page 9 and 10: Acknowledgments First and foremost,
Page 11 and 12: Introduction This thesis shows how
Page 13 and 14: 1. Interactive Speech Applications
Page 15 and 16: 2. This work 5 Speech recognizer Us
Page 17 and 18: 3. Grammatical Framework 7 ponents
Page 19 and 20: 3. Grammatical Framework 9 concrete
Page 21 and 22: 4. Paper I: Speech Recognition Gram
Page 23: 5. Paper II: Multimodal Dialogue Sy
Page 27 and 28: 8. Future work 17 On the other hand
Page 29 and 30: REFERENCES 19 Matthias Denecke. Rap
Page 31 and 32: REFERENCES 21 Manny Rayner, Beth A.
Page 33: Paper I Speech Recognition Grammar
Page 36 and 37: 26 Bringert Expressivity Speech rec
Page 38 and 39: 28 Bringert abstract Food = { cat O
Page 40 and 41: 30 Bringert Left-recursion eliminat
Page 42 and 43: 32 Bringert 4.2 Discussion The gene
Page 44 and 45: 34 Bringert by parser generators fo
Page 46 and 47: 36 Bringert 9 Conclusions We have s
Page 48 and 49: 38 Bringert the 10th Workshop on th
Page 50 and 51: 40 Bringert
Page 53 and 54: Multimodal Dialogue System Grammars
Page 67: Paper III A Pattern for Almost Comp
Page 70 and 71: 60 Bringert, Ranta 3. Write a funct
Page 72 and 73: 62 Bringert, Ranta EAbs x b → EAb
Page 74 and 75:
64 Bringert, Ranta class Applicativ
Page 76 and 77:
66 Bringert, Ranta data Cat = Stm |
Page 78 and 79:
68 Bringert, Ranta Typ_, and use ty
Page 80 and 81:
70 Bringert, Ranta 4.7 Properties o
Page 82 and 83:
72 Bringert, Ranta } } The Visitor
Page 84 and 85:
74 Bringert, Ranta class Free exten
Page 86 and 87:
76 Bringert, Ranta data Person = P
Page 88 and 89:
78 Bringert, Ranta The renaming exa
Page 90 and 91:
80 Bringert, Ranta • Our approach
Page 92 and 93:
82 Bringert, Ranta 7.3 Related work
Page 94 and 95:
84 Bringert, Ranta makes it easy to
Page 96:
86 Bringert, Ranta Conor McBride an
show all

Compiling Grammar-based Speech Application ... - CiteSeerX

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?