Advertisement

Pivotal Synchronization Languages: A Framework for Alignments

  • Anssi Yli-Jyrä
  • Jyrki Niemi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4002)

Abstract

We propose pivotal synchronization languages (PSLs) that represent alignments of parallel processes. PSLs are closely related to synchronization languages [10], but the strings in PSLs are partitioned into sequences of pivots. In the partitioned representation, each pivot gathers and aligns simultaneous process boundaries (starts and terminations). The paper demonstrates that PSLs (and new join operators) provide a unified framework for implementing some independent formalisms. In particular, we show that at least two existing formalisms, generalized synchronization expressions [10] and interleave-disjunction-lockexpressions [8] have PSL-based counterparts. Furthermore, we sketch tentatively a new formalism that adapts the ideas of the operator of generalized restriction [11] to PSLs. All this suggests that the union of these formalisms might be implementable.

Keywords

Natural Language Processing Parallel Execution Process Symbol Natural Language Generation Regular Operation 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Amir, A., Cole, R., Hariharan, R., Lewenstein, M., Porat, E.: Overlap matching. Information and Computation 181, 57–74 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beesley, K.R., Karttunen, L.: Finite State Morphology. CSLI Studies in Computational Linguistics. CSLI Publications, Stanford (2003)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bird, S., Ellison, T.M.: One-level phonology: Autosegmental representations and rules as finite automata. Computational Linguistics 20(1), 55–90 (1994)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bird, S., Liberman, M.: A formal framework for linguistic annotation. Speech Communication 33, 23–60 (2001)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hélary, J.M., Mostefaoui, A., Raynal, M.: Interval consistency of asynchronous distributed computations. Journal of Computer and System Sciences 64, 329–349 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kiraz, G.A.: Multitiered nonlinear morphology using multitape finite automata: A case study on Syriac and Arabic. Computational Linguistics 26(1), 77–105 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Koskenniemi, K.: Two-level morphology: a general computational model for word-form recognition and production. Publications of the Department of General Linguistics, vol. 11, University of Helsinki, Yliopistopaino, Helsinki (1983)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Nederhof, M.-J.: IDL-expressions: A formalism for representing and parsing finite languages in natural language processing. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Research 21, 287–317 (2004)MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ryl, I., Roos, Y., Clerbot, M.: About synchronization languages. In: Brim, L., Gruska, J., Zlatuška, J. (eds.) MFCS 1998. LNCS, vol. 1450, pp. 533–542. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salomaa, K., Yu, S.: Synchronization expressions with extended join operation. Theoretical Computer Science 207, 73–88 (1998)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Yli-Jyrä, A.M., Koskenniemi, K.: Compiling contextual restrictions on strings into finite-state automata. In: Cleophas, L., Watson, B.W. (eds.) The Eindhoven FASTAR Days, Proceedings, Computer Science Reports 04/40, Technische Universiteit Eindhoven, Eindhoven, The Netherlands, September 3–4 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Anssi Yli-Jyrä
    • 1
  • Jyrki Niemi
    • 2
  1. 1.CSC – Scientific Computing Ltd.Finland
  2. 2.Department of General LinguisticsUniversity of HelsinkiFinland

Personalised recommendations