Talk:Word-sense disambiguation

message: 'We shall deal with the deep approaches first'? Is this a transcription of a university professor's lecture, or what. Aardark 17:04, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lecture?

message: The "bass" example is a homograph, while sense disambiguation often deals with finer distinctions (like the people sitting at a table verses the actual table).
A song could be about fish, the first example isn't explicit enough to claim all people recognize it as the musical type of bass.
i really wish there was a disambiguation:disambiguation section.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.70.93 (talk) 03:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Homographs, vs. other WSD tasks

message: It's not that hard to disambiguate "The dog barks at the tree", if you are using a tagger in the disambiguation process.  'bark' is a verb and as such can only be of the sense 'dog noise'.  The examples given in the article don't adequately describe the challenges of WSD.  -- 72.200.78.210 (talk) 04:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Bad example

message: There are other algos, and some of the most interesting and seemingly most successful, have been proposed by Radu Mihalcea. Article should mention, if not review these. I'm also thinking that the current algo description is over-long, wandering off into excess detail for what should be a more general article? linas (talk) 23:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mihalcea's algo's 

message: not moved per WP:COMMONNAME argument below. --rgpk (comment) 18:05, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: With all due respect it is completely relevant. Usage of hyphens in such compounds is, like it or not, changing and the more common usage now, at least with respect to this expression, appears to be not to use the hyphen.  – ukexpat (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I partly agree. Wikipedia hyphen style conflicts with common usage. The question is whether, in this case, adopting common usage is more important than following the style guide. The name is set – we're not debating an alternative name, the subject of WP:COMMONNAME – we're debating punctuation, a style issue which is not discussed in WP:TITLE. --Pnm (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Deleted the reference to polysemy 6/16 because technically speaking, the term refers only to groups of meanings that are distinct but related in some relevant way (cf the Wiki Polysemy entry). Thus 'mole' the rodent and 'mole' the scientific unit are not classified as polysemous but as non-polysemous homonyms. Yet the two are grist for the disambiguation mill like any other potential ambiguities at the word level. Experts please verify, and please excuse gaffes (this is my very first Wiki edit). Astigmatist (talk) 21:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to polysemy 

message: When there is no discussion about removing sections of the article,
when there are no edit summaries over the numerous changes by a single editor, 
there I must quickly revert (at least temporarily) without question.  Discuss?? — CpiralCpiral 17:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revert of section blanking 

message: I think the language needs to be simplified here. It is not only  because the language is a bit flowery, but it is also hard to understand. For instance, what do you mean exactly by POS-tagging and WSD making constraints to each other? I am not a specialist in WSD, so I cannot do a lot of editing without risk of introducing errors.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srchvrs (talk • contribs) 00:19, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Simplifying the language 

message: It is clearly a very subjective division. Especially if you claim that deep approaches require a comprehensive knowledge base. For example, the deep QA architecture of IBM Watson does not rely on such knowledge. Yet, it is considered deep enough. At the very least, you cannot generalize and say such  a distinction is universal in NLP (using knowledge base as the single criterion). Going down the rabbit-hole, you can use only surface forms and basic co-occurrence statistics. But, you can also do some basic semantic parsing. Or syntax parsing. How deep would it be? Some knowledge is there, it is not exactly shallow.  
A better classification is given here: http://aclweb.org/aclwiki/index.php?title=Word_sense_disambiguation
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Srchvrs (talk • contribs) 00:30, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep vs Shallow approaches