Abstract
It is well-known that feature structures (Rounds and Kasper 1986) can be fruitfully viewed as forming a Scott domain (Moshier 1988). Once a linguistically motivated notion of “set value” in feature structures is countenanced, however, this is no longer possible inasmuch as unification of set values in general fails to yield a unique result. In Pollard and Moshier 1990 it was shown that, while falling short of forming a Scott domain, the set of feature structures possibly containing set values satisfies the weaker condition of forming a “2/3 SFP domain” when equipped with an appropriate notion of subsumption: that is, for any finite setS of feature structures, there is a finite setM of minimal upper bounds ofS such that any upper bound ofS is approximated by a member ofM. Unfortunately, the 2/3 SFP domains are not as pleasant to work with as Scott domains since they are not closed under all the familiar domain constructions; and the question has remained open whether the feature structure domain satisfies the added condition of profiniteness. (The profinite ω-algebraic domains with least elements are a subclass of the 2/3 SFP domains which enjoy the pleasant property of being the largest full subcategory of ω-algebraic domains that is closed under the usual domain constructions.) In this paper we resolve this question in the affirmative.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abramsky, S.: 1989, ‘Domain Theory in Logical Form’, InAnnals of Pure and Applied Logic, North-Holland.
Aczel, P.: 1988,Non-well-founded Sets. CSLI Lecture Notes 14, Stanford: CSLI Publications, and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gunter, C. and A. Jung: 1988, ‘Coherence and Consistency in Domains (Extended Outline)’, In Y. Gurevich (ed.),Logic in Computer Science. IEEE Computer Society Press.
Fenstad, J. E., P. K. Halversen, T. Langholm and J. van Benthem: 1987,Situations, Language and Logic, Studies in Linguistic and Philosophy Series. Dordrecht: Reidel.
Moshier, M. A.: 1988,Extensions to Unification Grammar for the Description of Programming Languages. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan.
Periera, F. and S. Shieber: 1984, ‘The Semantics of Grammar Formalisms Seen as Programming Languages’, InProceedings of COLING 1984, 23–129.
Pollard, C. J. and M. A. Moshier: 1990, ‘Unifying Partial Descriptions of Sets’, In Philip P. Hanson, (ed.),Information, Language and Cognition, Vancouver Studies in Cognitive Science 1. Vancouver. University of British Columbia Press.
Pollard, C. J. and I. A. Sag: 1987,Information-based Syntax and Semantics. Volume 1: Fundamentals, CSLI Lecture Notes 13, CSLI Publications, Stanford and Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Pollard, C. J. and I. A. Sag: 1994,Head-Driven Phrase Structure Grammar, University of Chicago Press Chigago.
Rounds, W. C. and R. T. Kasper: 1986, ‘A Complete Logical Calculus for Record Structures Representing Linguistic Information’, InProceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science, June 1986.
Rounds, W. C. (ms.): ‘Set Values for Unification-Based Grammar Formalisms and Logic Programming’,Manuscript, CSLI and Xerox PARC.
Shieber, S., H. Uszkoreit, J. Robinson and M. Tyson: 1983, ‘The Formalism and Implementation of PATR-II. InResearch on Interactive Acquisition and Use of Knowledge, Artificial Intelligence Center, SRI International. Menlo Park, CA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Moshier, M.A., Pollard, C.J. The domain of set-valued feature structures. Linguist Philos 17, 607–631 (1994). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985320
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00985320