- Mar 11, 2011
-
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
It's a tuple boolean/Match Value - "is it matched?"/"actual match"
-
- Mar 09, 2011
-
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
ilor authored
-
ilor authored
-
ilor authored
-
ilor authored
-
ilor authored
-
ilor authored
-
ilor authored
-
- Mar 07, 2011
-
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
- Mar 04, 2011
-
-
Paweł Kędzia authored
-
Paweł Kędzia authored
-
Paweł Kędzia authored
-
- Mar 03, 2011
- Mar 02, 2011
-
-
Paweł Kędzia authored
-
- Feb 28, 2011
-
-
Paweł Kędzia authored
-
- Feb 25, 2011
- Feb 24, 2011
-
-
Paweł Kędzia authored
-
- Feb 22, 2011
-
-
Paweł Kędzia authored
-
- Feb 16, 2011
-
-
Adam Wardynski authored
Previously effectively agreement was checked on all categories, even if a lexeme's tag didn't have some of the selected categories. That led to treating such lexeme as not agreeing with one that had more matching categories, even if it was agreeing on all categories that were present.
-
Adam Radziszewski authored
-
- Feb 15, 2011
-
-
ilor authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
-
Adam Wardynski authored
Underlying issue was temporary table of remaining lexemes for a token not being updated (emptied) if only underspecified lexemes of the token met an agreement. Effectively the token was left in its original state i.e. with all original lexemes present, both those that were underspecified and the remaining ones that did not met a weak agreement that was otherwise met via the underspecified lexemes.
-