[ai_group] Re: grammar checking.
- From: "Dr.X" <drx@xxxxxxx>
- To: <ai_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 15 Apr 2002 00:14:38 -0400
Are you talking about Wintertrees dll/api? It's not royalty free. In fact,
that's the one that cost $950. Unless you was at another site or something. The
only thing I found on their site that was free was the free trial on the app.
:-(
Dr.X
-----Original Message-----
From: ai_group-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ai_group-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of John Jacques
Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2002 11:04 PM
To: ai_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [ai_group] Re: grammar checking.
Ha, I saw your post in the BCX group and went to the page. At the very
bottom (or close to it) there is ONE and it it ROYALTY FREE. It has a
dll or api thing like you wanted. I didn't book mark the page, but if
you can't find it I'll get it again.
--- "Dr.X" <drx@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Wholly sh*t! It seems that every stinking company under the sun that
> ever made a
> grammar checker program thinks they have gold. Some (like Wintertree
> Software!)
> actually wants over 900 dollars for their one, count 'em, ONE
> stinking little
> grammar dll. Are they f-ing crazy?!?! How am I going to teach my ai
> program good
> grammar without having to do it all manually?!?!? THEIR NUTS!!!! Look
> at MY
> grammar. Should "I" of all people be teaching grammar?!?! LOL!!!
>
> So, I guess this is just another hurdle to jump in the ai world. A
> good ai
> program will recognize bad grammar in it's output before it becomes
> output. I
> was thinking about making calls to MS Word but there is no guarantee
> that all
> systems running the ai will have word. Also, after looking around on
> MS's site,
> I found that they would frown on that anyway. :-(
>
> Along with the summarizer on the wish list, I put a command line
> driven grammar
> and spell checker. At least grammar. Spelling could come pretty easy
> with Word
> Net. While scouring for this elusive command line GC, I happened upon
> the
> following. May mean nothing to us but interesting just the same.
>
> <quote>
> ====
> Date: Fri, 29 Mar 2002 14:06:13 -0700
> From: Bruce Wampler <bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: Loosing It's Grammer Skill's (RISKS-21.94-96)
>
> The current discussion on Spelling/Grammar prompts me to add some
> comments
> from my personal, first-hand perspective on the issue. I was the
> original
> developer of one of the first successful commercial grammar checkers
> -
> Grammatik. The major development of grammar checkers was at its peak
> in the
> late 1980's and early 1990's.
>
> One of the most distressing things to me is the fact that the quality
> of
> both spelling and grammar checking software available today is no
> better
> than it was almost 10 years ago. How did this happen?
>
> It may be hard to remember, but as recently as 1993 or 1994, you
> still had a
> real choice of what word processor you used. Today, Microsoft has a
> virtual
> monopoly with Word. In 1992, Microsoft decided that the state of
> grammar
> checking had gotten both good and essential enough that one should be
> integrated with Word. This decision has had many effects on the state
> of
> grammar checking.
>
> In 1992, there were at least four grammar checkers available that
> could be
> considered state of the art, or nearly so. Microsoft chose one, and
> WordPerfect followed their lead by acquiring my company. The other
> companies
> faded into oblivion, with the ultimate result that, after a couple of
> years,
> there was no major new R&D going on with English grammar checking (to
> the
> best of my knowledge).
>
> Because of this chain of events, the grammar checker you get today in
> Word
> is not significantly better than the grammar checker you might have
> used
> almost 10 years ago. This is really sad because we were making great
> improvements in the quality and accuracy of the software, and had the
> development continued, there is little doubt that many of
> deficiencies of
> grammar checking would have been overcome.
>
> Unfortunately, as long as Microsoft considers the current grammar
> checking
> good enough, and as long as Word remains the dominant word processor,
> there
> will be little or no incentive for anyone to independently develop
> better
> grammar checkers. The RISK in this? Monopoly and complacency.
>
> (This note has been spell checked, but not grammar checked. No
> grammar
> checking available for my e-mail software...)
>
> Bruce E. Wampler, Ph.D., Author of the V C++ GUI Framework
> bruce@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.objectcentral.com
>
> ===
> </quote>
>
> Dr.X
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/
Other related posts:
