American Journal of Computatianal Linguistics 
~icrbfiche 81 
THE FINITE STRING 
Released-for publ~cation March 24, 2979 
With this issue, David O. Hays 
completes his term as Editor @-f 
AJCL snd breathes a sigh of re- 
lief. Personal matterg have made 
the last two issues of AJCL for 
1978 excessively late. The next 
issues of AJCL -wSll appear on pa- 
per; but the circumstances of the 
mumepa nuggest that digital mag- 
netic recording and direct wire 
transmission  ill be suitable 
for experimental use shortly. 
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF 
LINGUISTICS is p~bli 
Association for Comp 
Linguistics 
EDITOR, 1974-1978: 
COlJlPUTAT 
shed by 
utationa 
David G. 
'IONAL 
the 
.1 
Hays 
EDITORIAL ASSISTANT, 19-77-1978: 
William L. Benzon 
MANAGIMG EDITOR j 1977 - : 
Donald E. Walker, Artificial 
Intelligence Center, SRI Interna- 
tional, Menlo Park, CA 94025 
TECHNICAL ADVISOR, 197 5- : 
Martin Kay, Xerox Palo Alto Re- 
search Center 
Copyrigh-t: @ 1979 
Association for Computational Linguistics 
CONTENTS 
COMPUTATIONAL LINGUXSTICS IN THE USSR: July 1978 
..................... Joyc'e fi'riedmar~ 
As9ociation tor Literary and Linguistic Computing BULLETIN 
.......... Volyne 6, Number 2, 1978 . ., .... 14 
.... .......... 
Vdlume 6, Number3, 1978 .,. 15 
PROPERTIES OF 1,EXICAL RELATIONS 
. .......... 
.Martha W. Evens and Raoul N. Smith k~ 16 
MODELS OF THE SEMANTIC S~TRUCTURE OF DICTTONARIES 
KennethC. Litkowski ................-a 25 
AFIPS WASHINGTON =PORT a 
........ Febreary 1979 
.......... 75 
March 1979 . . ................. 53 
April 1979 ... 
................. 91 
N -14 
Computer Studies in 
Form a1 L ingaist ics 
Department oE C~mputer 3rpd 
Zomrnuniza tian S~ienc?s 
TtIE UNIVERSII'Y OF UTCF?IC.r\Y 
Ann Arbor, Michigan 481.39 
July 1978 
COflP'3T ATIONRL LINGPI STTCS IN THE USSR 
Joyce Friedman 
ABSTRACT 
------- 
AS part of an off ic ial 3. s (JSS?? 
ScSenze Pxchaaqe on Arpl icaticrns of Csmputers 
in Mana<7ement,, a subgroup on natural Lang~,a.g~ 
processing visited the soviet Union €con: R.ay 
25 throug'r Jnn? 11, 1978. The qr3up azt with 
szient ists i:~ Noszow, N~vosibir~sk. Leningrad, 
3nrlKiev. There were fornral rn2e;tinqts and 
pre%sentations of technical materia I, 3nd 3 lso 
m3ny inFornd1 discussions- This report 
pres=g t5 a view of Soviet c~mput 3ti2,nn 1 
linqui sti:.s wh i ch emerged f~om these 
3is~ussi~ns. 
Tbc~~llmS./rlSSP Science Exchange on ~pplisations of Comput?rs 
to tlanaqenzr t in=lu?es many sub-ta.;ks. The exchange in natural 
languaq~. prxess in7 is one task undet- thq topic "theorst iza 1 
f oun dat i on.; f~r softwarir in applications in, rconomics and 
man~rle?nent~*, The 2xchanqe in natural languqgc. procsssisq uss to 
hvo bequn in June 1977. However, a scbelulei tri.p by 11-5. 
qrirhntists WCI,? cavzslL~3 at the fast minute by the USSR si3e: t9e 
r~3~3n 7iv~n was tb3t there wera no hotel ro=,ms avaihble in 
~OSZ OW, rn s~itc this initial disappointment the exchanqe 
h~rj~r r ir Y,ven%er 1977 when thr~)~ S0v.i-t scientists visite3+= t?e 
rtqiterl Stlt~rg f~t two waeks, The visitors w~e Al,exand?r 
Y3ri qmva tl i or th? Academy of Scjence:, Campu ting Cs8 ter i n 
Nov7sit.i rsl an I Victor Eriahrin an3 Dmitri P~spelov of tne 
3 of Ci~icn:?s roaprltinq Center ir, MOSCOU. The trfp 
rpoorted in this roCe is tfic rescheduled visit by tha O.S. 
* 
il~L0qat ion. Tt took place Pay ?R to June 11, 1378, 
Tt16 m>nhcat.; of th- UIS. dc1eqati.o~ vcre: Danald Aufcrnkam?, 
. F, 'JrSr Ch2irrncrn of the I1.S./USSR Joint working Croup 3e 
Scicntif LC an1 T~zhn,i.=3l Coopratio.\ in th? AppLicat ion 3f 
Conputerr to * anajernnnt ; Sue Rogner, 4. Em ; Jayco Prieirna~, 
?rpart\ent of Zoapufer 3114 :onttnunica tion Scienczs, The Universit p. 
of qichigin; tobn H3) houl, Bolt Beranet and Newman, Inc., 
Cnmbridqe; 5t3nl~y Pctrick, Mathematiss Dspqrtment, f3 r 
T. 1. aa ts3n R~searr: h Lontze, Yort town ilri3t.t~: Saliy Sedelou, 
D?.qartmc.ntr, of U?gu~+sti~= and Co~puter Srience, Oniversity 3f 
Sansas: an1 Udlt'.~r A. Seilelow, Departments af Fociolngy 31d 
computer Scien?e, UR $v~rsfty ~f Kansas. The 0-3. lelega tinn vis 
accampaniel throughm~t the trip by A. 5. ~ar%n'p@ni 3f 
No~osibi rsk . 
This report gr3up5 tog~ther similar work dane in differe~t 
locations- rllh3: main patterns of the natura hnguage pracessi~g 
and theorem-provin! systems cam he view=d 35 based an (1) 
linquiqt ~CS, (2) ar t ificial intelligence, 9r (3) lagibc, a lthoi*~ h 
tho distinctions ara tr, somt. extent arbitrary. We also in 
over~i~w oC tha compu tsrs and yroqramming 13ncjuages available f st 
w3 t iA camputlt fonal linguist~cs. Work on Iexicography, 
thesauri, and speech re?ognf.tibon uas also discuspeil on the visik, 
halt is not zavct~?3 SD this report. 
The m3i.n root.; of ths Iin3uL(stically-bas~d work are the 
mean &ng-.text mod91 of Fel'chuk, d~pendpnry grammar, 37d 
ttans€ormationaR qr%mmqr, They are variausly interpreted by 
diff er~nt systeas. 
Zopa ShL yayitqs, taboratory of nach ine Tch its la t io3 
Tnstitute + a?rexan Lanljtia3es, descfibe3 an English to Russlin 
mach ine translst ion system under development sinze 1972 and bss?d 
primarily on +he mesninl-text nroAoL. The rzpresent~tion is a 
&ependency trea, with word order informtion, n:,rphalogy awl 
senantic/s~rntactic valr3ncies. This structure preser9.s all tae 
turf ace data but is also close t a semantic ceprzsantation ~f 
ths text. f her? i3 a Aictianary and a gramaar for aach Languiw-.. 
The* aramrmr rrll~t ar- of the two forms: &f <structure> t,b,zg, 
<c?ndition>, an3 iC Cstacture? thgg <traasform%tion>. Semantic: 
inf~armat ion incluies senant ic descr ipt~ons of l&rical 2nd 
rn3rph013qic31 pn its and the semantic accept3biLity af word pairs. 
There is a dictioniry OF 30,700 lexsmes, described in terms of 30 
semantic pcinst ivt-s The syntactic arid rzemfntiz dtructutes are 
coqpatihlo, so ansl'ysis q3es onl'y a3 deep as is nates-ry for a 
qbivu& s~>nhnce. Shalyapiha's qroup worKs Dn Lrncruist ir! aspecr s 
dnl y; ther- is go ~a~prlter impleme'ntation. 
Uri Aqresyan 3tso wares with the msani'gg-text ~odel and wi.th- 
mackrne trlnsl~tion as the~jo3f- His work is nri-rltgrlly on Prenzh 
t3 Russian trhnsLitii>ns, but he aLs9 works .or1 ~nglish. His 
wnql ish grlmmar is cia id to b he most complet~ evrr puhlishel : 
thh nossiin qrImmlc will soar1 appear. Th- limjuistic adel gill 
have fovr v3 r ts: m:,r ~holagy, deep syrlta x, sdrf a::e synta x, a~d 
r,om-ntics; bowever, the zurren t reduced no4~1 l~ks seiuanties. A 
qirtion3ry giv2s; fgr each ~r3 its morphol~gy, its syntactic aud 
seqa ntik f-%+ur=s (there are 150-syntadt ic features; 500 semantic* 
features), the semsntic: criteria for possible govlernin~j word.;, 
an1 selccti?ndl q~strirtions. Rule sch'ema or wsynt3gmas'' go frrrn 
morpheme structr~re to a surface syntactis structure that is 'in 
unor 3erod' 4znendency tree. The-re arc a hottt 2) 3 syntl pas f ~r 
Russian, each rppresentinl 29 rules. A syntlyma allbus a trze 
with X over Y ts be constttuzted from a string c~ntaining X and Y 
un lor variaus complex, conditions. The. Irxica 1 infornafion and 
th.3 synt a-jmls determine tho transfotrnation from worf sttih r to 
surf ace-syrrtactic structure. A deep structure is then define? ay 
ltp-arap_hra~ti~'t I. whish convert. for exsm~Le, s&g&& to 
del.'kxgr when tha ob-ject is 3 -- blow. The daep structure is no 
lon~er lanquaqe-spcific but is r1nivers31. and serves as the 
hasis for translhtian hetwe~n languages, 4~resy3n Stre~qed t~e 
valde of cnntinuing to work on the same linpistic moilel in or3zr 
tFi complete its dev;lopmant; he eontrAsted this with the attTtq1e 
ok soinr current Aa~c icap lingu isrs. 
The 
1 
lin~ui-su" Iakalev, df thq Sconomizs Iz~stittrt~ L ?i 
developi ny 3 nat ura1 lwicjua~e interface for (r ?1 ta basc sypd-en.. 
Tbjs work has cgrnput~~ suppott an?, is runni,nn soon *in 3 
Isrqe fact~ry. Th2 8aturaL lanquaqt. srlt~se+ has sentencss sucla 35 
'lwh?t 1s the ntrinher of wqrkers a€ <rype> in <pl"ac~>~' an4 is 
said to h- easy %r ocon~mis~:; to 3earri. The systm is based 3h 
v~ry recent modslc 3f t ransf or~atronal gramnar: Isk31ev ment ionzd 
"traccls" 3 sole 3f Jacken33f f*s theoric*~. 'Ih= syst~m TOPS Er3a 
input to ti deep ~>tr~lctt~re f rqmv which it constr:~zts a farmula i3~ 
tb~ co~r~t~t ion of % tl~tnericaL result. 
AT-hated syst~ras are beinq developc3 at th Colnpi~ting Centx- 
of, the Rcai-my of Sziences nt MOSCOW, 11niiar tt,a direction 3f 
Vi -+fir Driq brin snil at the Computing renter dP the Siberiir, 
Pivisiort ~f th~ Rzideag of Science.;, Nav33j trirsk 
un8er t12 
airection r~~ ll?xan3e-r Narin'yani, in ~rshdv's .group. 
The system ?enonstrated to us in Morc~w wls DrLOS (Dialqqie 
Inform.itio? Loyical System). This work is heaviiy influehced 3y 
artificial intelligc~nce work in the U. S. 18ri.brln1 spent scvan 
monthsat Lf-F., w3rking uith William Rartjn and with Carl 
Hewitt-) DTLOC; is written in LISP and runs 3n the BESrl-6 co~~pli+il.c 
in Ho'scow, a well as Dn a PDP-11/45 at the Intczrnatianil 
'Institute for Appli.23 Systems Analysis in Laxcnburg, Austri.3, 
Ths sptern is intenled both to test various apptoaches to natt~rll 
language processi.nj and for praet ical a ppli.~ations., It zonta3.q~ 
an hTN lin~uistic processor and a semantis prxessor ba-sea >n 
f rsnes. The cut reat applications are3 i airline ti.ck? t 
reservations: the 3?morjstration was however on 3 very small data 
haw of ATB Ifat trraf Languag e Systems (includin? DILOS, qU5, RFL, 
Out, anrl LlfNAP). The systen was a He to answer simple natursl 
lanquaqe questions from the data Ddse hut it was not possibLe 
from the demonstration to clzt a good feeli~g for th2 actual rmfe 
.oI 1 anou age aesgptei. 
rJarin*yanies ?coup in Novosibirsk has 17 pmpla, inzlu3incf 6 
linyuists and 9 mathem3tgcia n~ and programmer=., Until 3 f?w 
years ago, the worlr followel Mel@Chukes morl3L. Phis has nou besn 
abandoned here aqd work proceeds along faur lines, so far 
ralativ~?Iv inde~en.1 zntly: (1) Marine yitni is dewelping a fggcxrl 
Linquis$ic moig& which zombines depen3?ncy an3 constituent 
--I -- 
structure in n mi, xed multi-level reprs~enta tion. Analysqs 
proceeds by loc31 m2dification of the qraph structures, axparldilq 
and compr~ssing z3se frames at var ousi.1~~els. l'he li.nguisti~ 
mo3el so far inzlu3rzs form1 descri ptiqr~ 3f aiverb groqps 31d 
adjective .jroups, This formal model has now bezn written up, but 
so far is not implemented. (L) The semantic guestion-answmi~c~ 
system VOSTJK-O contains a formal model of time. 04 the basis 3f 
texhs of sentanyes such as wProm the 3rd up to the 13th of finrlh 
flike was in ~oscow~ it answars guestions'like Vhere uas Yike at 
Roon on the 17th oc March?", The system is coq33 iq SETL 4nO was 
ileaonstrate3 t~ US. While the natuta& language frqment is still 
smakl, even For a m:,de'l of time, (el g- nd ti"me sdvsrbials), t,+e 
inf erenciny schame workad suc~ss€u~lY. (3) Sev3y3 1 
t~applicati:,na1'~systemcs are being devel ped- The first of: thp-3, 
the PL-1 fBrnini" or "toyw system Z4PSIR20 use': assenti,aIly QO 
syntactic 3r,atysis (thmqh i.t relies heavily on word order). It 
has. a well-3efined sunject domain, a dats base 3 oersonn~l 
inf~rmation, and 3 vswers questions such 3s *'who nnde~ 30 earls 
more than d~eraqe?'~ (Salary information is ~uhlkc in the US5R. L 
Tn this vzry Limited suhI~ct dorn;li.n, th2 anwoazh works uclL, 
The t'midlitt applicationnb system is unbr d~velopment and ins morp 
synt actically oriel t ,.dl 1 t will cqntain a nondetermi.nisti.c 
bottom-up p3rs-r FSc a big pry context-sensitive gramqar wit 11 
8iscontinu~u~ ~onstituef-ts. (4) The final subjtonp is tbc 
proqrammin~ languap group; it hss .irn~lem\ented 3ETC on the BESY- 
fi * 
In fl~scow, at PTNITI, the ringuist E, L3. Paducheva and the 
mathemat iciin I!. D. Rorelska ya ace developin7 j?intl y an anproszI1 
to natural lanquaqf ~ramssi nc, base4 Dn both t rfnsfarqat i7,r.tl 
grammar a13 first-order 0. The cl~rrpnt 3onai.n is converv 
theorems in ge.ornetry. The system is able to prqzess- ~eometcy 
theorems and prbaace their 19conv&rse theorems". In this systzm 
the semantic repr~sentatian 1anquage is first warder loji.2. 
Algorithmi.3 procedures for analyeis and synthesis have been 
'deoelop~d, ss we 11 3 s processing procedures within the logiz. 
The linqnistic psct of the methoit is based on trabsfarmationnl 
grammar.- As i th. case with most of the Soyiet work 3x1 
trans€c)rrmational grammar, the deep struzturs uses dependenzy 
grammar t~~hec th%n constituent st rlict ure gr 3 rnmar. T$ e 
transformations ar9 originally written in the Foruhrd djxectio~, 
i-em from jeep to surface structure. Analysis is 33ae using a 
wrsverse?'8 vecs inn of each ttaasforrnati~n (not ohtain-ja 
~~~thmatScatly). While t be f orwarJ transf~raatiaks ar e 
libi+pe~l~ent of oc let the reversal rules are strictly orler~l, 
for efficjeney. There are 30-37 transforaabions, each eipress?3 
as a structural description, giver as a tenplat?, and a 
structursl chanye, qiv~n as a ssquenct2 of el-n~ntary operatiom. 
a 
The work I s i 3 vc.1ope.I in detail, but has no comput2r 
implem~ntation. The systtm is said to co?te~n interestiiq 
sc,Lntions 29 pt:,hLsms of qt~antific?tion, neqatlon, a%d 
con j unct iov re\l uct ion. Tm e authors raport 32, wit5 son tr 
amusement, tbar tPe description of the work was printed in 42,030 
copi 9s. 
The current work at the University 3f Leninqrad u~der 3 
Tsaitin, Facolt y of Enqine~ring and irathematics, was clsscribed to 
us by others as based 3n 197ic8 bat l'seiti-n himself took a 
phi1osopCi::~l appr3acb jn his discussions vit~ us. His renarca 
vere mor- sagge-; tivl thcEf 3zscripti.v~. He iniicated that his 
approach t> catur11 lanquage was bf analogy to programming 
1anquast3s8 usin7 mlz ros as: in operatinq systzas. Hz cLar'lPad 
"that thete is n3 such thing as meaningn, but sail th3t Itis 
approach di3 us% pr~sedural semantics. His pcevious work 3'1 
complexity and ti aor~n-proving i.s not related to his wark 3n 
natural languaq~. However, heid P argue 'that a natural 1 angu'iga 
systea for computars should teflect the fact that natur31 
langua )e pscf ormanca by people doe? not r;epu.ire exp3nen ti.al tima, 
Tsertln's nun current u3rk is no& on natural 1an3uage, as he is 
busy vri,ting 3 9LGQL68 i.mplerr\entation. 
Tsc rti n an3 t iak.ina, formerly of the Fad Lty of Phi lolog\, 
also talke? dhout ssveral esrli.er natural lanau~ge spst~ns ~hi.>h 
I am unclble &a 3lst1nquzsh. They are descrrbed i.n a number 3f 
oubli-cation; from 1366 on. In gererat, they vrpL~y Sepandrn- y 
grammarc, 3 use tran.;f~rma bions d11ri.n~ ~yntd2ti.~ dnaly~i.3 - 
Ppst~i.ctLonz on tha gramat are stated :in the pcedizste calculus 
and resolution 'th9or-m-provinq i,s used. -'The goal is Enqlish to 
Rus- ran translat i.on of scien ti.Ei.~ tlrose- 
Thc system of 3. Kapito?ova, riead of the Laboratory 3f 
A~pli.e;i Cybei.neti.cs at. thz Institute of Cybernetiss at Kiev, i.~ 
an in+~rac+i.ve th~.,r~rll-~rovi,n'~ system fbr mathernnti.c~l text=. 
The 0hyerti.v~ is to be able to fi.1 l i.n tha sta'hdard uapq in 
proofs, as indi.cata3 by "it is obvious thatw or #'as irk the pro:,f 
of tho nrrui~us Theorem", The text i.s fitst proczsse3 manually 
rnto a hi$h'Ly stylrzed mathanst1ca1 languaqe- Only the form 1 
material, theorvus rnil pro~f s, is analyzed: diszussion i.s tres+~C 
as comment and i..; ianored by the programs- SeveraL larae texts, 
including Curers an3 R~rner Al9ebrai.r Thyzy of Ztou_~_s, have hosn 
prep rores5~3.. T~P t heorem-prover i.~ \tailore& to the specific 
mathematicd. iom?rn- Xt uses resolution thzorem-pravinj, 
heur i.sti.c technr ques, as well as speci-a1 mathems ticil and logi- a31 
tachni~ries. TM system has been programmed and is about to ~e 
tried out o a recent thesis.. This projest is of ton yescs 
.lur~tion, and has had a minimr~m or 12 people. 
Tnter?(st in Man tscfne grqmmaru was considersbl?. Fly talk in 
Moscow w3 s very we11 attended, arid there ware mnrlv gosd 
qttestions. i'he audience was qeneraI.11 famiILar with Rpntagu~~s 
w.o r k- an3 with rez~nt papers or, the tapiz in ~rt ieicilr. ---- 1 
~ntelligenz- qn?. ~~IIOCP tical k&i.ggi~tics. The interest seeme3 to 
------- ---- 
cqe fr-nn P morei g neral interest in bgic as a kr,owleZje 
1 
yepr~s~n t3t inn i'n nata~a 1 langudge -systems. Aqafanov in 
NVsiis is 3 Is3 intmste3 iri tb,e possible applicntions ~f 
Yont 39~~ gra mnr to pro~ramm in7 languaqes. 
Coaput?r scc~ss appelrz 6a be mucF more Jiffizult to obtain 
for caaputft ion3 1 linq~l&s*s in the Soviet Union. flany of t're 
pr,a-jects h3if no cmputsr support, even though they wsra in ares 
where cnmpAt~r testing of grammars or the~ries cauld bs very 
ussful. Y 3st of the compllting was on the second-generatian' 
co'0puYer 9ESfi-6, a1 t bough them axe more rezent computers, e. g. , 
thc ES-ED4 (Qyad), series, availabie- for othzr porposes. 0.3, 
comp~~ters wers or orrler from Hewlett-Packard-, CDC, aqd 
9urrouqhs-The termi~als 3 sau were mainly graphics terminaks 
from Eastern Europe, with both Roman and Cyrillic character sets2 
and seortled fine in use. 
There is much interest in advanced progr3mming languages. 
SETI, is imp1 ernentef in Rovosibirsk. (This is with the akd of the 
U. 5. /USSR Science exchange. 1 'In Moscow, PASCAL is imp~emantal. 
Tn I.eningrrl, Tseibio is impie'menting ALGOL68 f3r the Ryad seri?s 
of compllters, compstible with the IBPI 36% 
We di3 have occasion ta see some interaztiva systems in 
opet ation, ~h; Id ngtiages were impressive, but the ptogrammx 
support was not, T'h~zo spame5 to be few error Ziagnastics- Wh?n 
th-re wore zr8sh~s it was not possible .to tell vhizh were due to 
th? computer aarl which' to tbe programs, 
ark onns tur31 langulje processinq in tha USSF seems to be 
alonq three m'ajnr lines, The work by lcinguists is motivated by 
m3ch ine translati~n. Tt relies on VPLS~ORS 3f Mel lthtikqs 
me2ninq-te:<t moclel, witb. some type of tran~focmations on a 
flz~~nd-ncy base. Tt is characterized by 2 great deal .3f 
soph isti cated devn3 :,pinent of large grammars, by large groups >f 
linqrrist-'s, ~br~t i5 without- computer support. The artifizisl 
inte llige~ze work is dir?cted taward d3ta base in£otmat.i~n 
systems, is at sn ed-tliec state of devel3pme1t. 386 is heavily 
has9d on U.3. work. It is caaried out in Zomplitinj Centers aa? 
has good proyr3rn~ing an? computer suppart. Th loqic-based wock 
in carrie? out by_ individuals or small groups in sever31 
1.ocations withaut rornputsp swport, and by ona lacge group with 
colnp u tctrrs, 
CONTENTS 
MACHINE -%TRANSLATION OF CHINESE MATHEMATICAL 
ARTLCLES ......................... S.-'C. ,&oh. L . Kong, and H.-,$. Hung 
THE CHINESE UNIVERSITY LANGUAGE TWSfATOR 
(CULT) . A REPORT .................................... P.H. Nancatrow 
AUTOMATIC SCANSION OF SANSKRIT POETRY FOR 
AUTHORSHIP CRITERIA .................................... D . Wujastyk 
THE MIzAR-QC/~OOO LOGIC INFORMATION LANGUAGE ............. Ama Trybulec 
THE DISCOVERY OF SYNTAGMA'EIC AND PARADIGMATIC 
CLASSES ......r......*.~.....oomoo~..m~o .................. J.G. Wolf£ 
REPORT ON A COURSE ON THE USE OF COMPUTERS IN 
TEXTUAL ANALYSIS AND BIBLIOGRXP~Y HELD IN THE 
COMPUTER UNIT OF THE UNIVERSITY COLLEGC OF WALES 
@ERY$TWYTH. 20-14 APRIL 1978 ..................... P . Sims-Williams 
COMPMBLE COMPUTER LANGUAGES FOR LINGU LSTIC AKI) 
LITERARY DATA PROCESSING: PERFORYtlNCE .................... .. . M . Boot 
A PARTIAL-PARSING ALGORITHM . FOK NATURAL LXhLti; 4t:E 
................ TEXT USING A SIMPLE GRAMMAR FOR ARCUYENT5 Pi J . Sal lis 
................ WANTED . COMPUTER READABLE DICTlONAKZES T.D. Crawford 
COLLOQUIUM ON THE USE OF COFIPUTERS Ih TEX'TUriL 
CRITICISM: A REPORT .................... z........b....... S.Y. Hockey 
Secretary's Notes ........................................ 
Diary ....................................................... 
Advertisement (Data Bases Conterenre) .............*......- 
Advertisement (ICCH/4) ..................................... 
Advertisement (ALLC International Mekting. 1978) ........... 
Notes on Contributors ....... .............................. 
Edit~rs' Notes ............................................. 
News and Notes .............................................. 
Book Reviews ................................................ 
Documents Received ....................................-• 
Letter to the Editor ..................................... 
.. 
Bibliography ..6................b............................ 
ALLC BuZZ~ein 
CONTENTS 
............... 
GUEST EDITORIAL: LOOKING BACK ................ F . de Tollgnsere 
.................................. 
REPORTS OF EOLLQQUIA IN T~BINGEN 
D . Kottke 
THE WORDS OCCURRING IN ENGLISH IDIOMS ........................... D.J. Wright 
PROPOSED CRITERIA FOR PUBLSSHING 
STATISTICAL MSULTS ............................... D . Ross and B . Brainerd 
ON THE TEACPING OF RUSSIAN NUMERALS 
BY USING ONLINE COMPUTER .........& KL Ahxiad. M . Colenso. and G . Corbett 
THE VALUE OF THE COMPUTER IN EDITING 
.................................... AN 'OPEN TRADITION' TEXT J.R.C. Martyn 
PROBABILITIES OF OCCURRENCE OF CHARACTERS. 
CHARACTER.PAIRS. AND CHARACTER-TRIPLETS 
. IN BNaISH TEXT ............................ R Shinghal and G.T' Toussaint 
SENTENCE LENGTH DISTRIBUTIONS IN 
GREEK HEXAMETERS Ahl HOMER ...... S . Michaslson. A.Q. Morton. and W.C. Walce 
SNOBOL: THE LANGUAGE FOR L'ITERARY COMPUTING .................... L.D. Burnard 
GENERATING AND TRANSFORMING BY A COMPUTER 
. WITHOUT A DZCTIONARY .................(pr............................ U Ornan 
THE OLD ICELANDIC 'ELUCIUAR1:'S' : 
A DIPLOMATIC EDITION WIW THE' 
. ...... ............ HELP OF THE COMPUTER E.S. Firc.110~. K. (.rin~. 111d S Gilrllour 
Advertisements .................................................... 
Secr6tary1s Notes ................................................. 
.................................................... Editor's Nates 
Advertisement ...............................,,.................... 
Diary .............................................................. 
Notes on Contributors .............................................. 
News and NoFes .................................................... 
.......... 
. Book Review ................,............................ ; 
Documents Received ..............................,.................. 
Bibliography ..................................... ................ 
ALLC BuZ Zetin 
Volume 6 
Evens & Sm th 87 
Bex~con for Q-A System See Microfiche 83 
Appendix XI. Properties of Lex+cal Rezations. 
a, Refldvity, Symmetry, Transitivity. 
Certain properties of lexical-sewtic relations can be very use- 
ful in deductive inference. For instance, 15 we know that a cheetah 
is a ki,na or mammal anu a mamm i.s a kind of vertebrate then we can 
deduce that a cheetah is a kind of vertebrate. Writing T for the taxonomy 
relation, we can abbreviate this sentence: if cheetah T mammal and mam- 
mal T vertebrate then cheetah T vertebrate. Whenever bTc and cTd, it 
follcaws that bTd. This fact ran be described much more effi ciently by 
the stuement that the taxonomy relation is transitive. Two other commonly 
menttand properties of relations are refilexivity and syrmnetry. These 
properties may ppply to predicates formed from lexical entries as well 
as to lexical-semantic relations. 
To be precise, a relation R defined on a set S is said to be a 
trana~t<ve relation if whenever b and c are R-related and also c and d 
are I? related then b and d staAd in a relation R also, Synonyniy is a 
transitive relation just as transitivity is. The preposition in behaves 
in the same way. If Sam is in the kitchen and the kitchen is in the 
hotel, then we know that Sam is in the hotel. The time interrelation 
before behaves like this, too. If Zorro arrived before the posse did 
and the posse arrived before thz explosion, then we know thgt Zorro 
arrived before the explosion. 
A relation R defined on a set S is said to have the refZez<ue pro- 
perty if all the elements of S are R-related to thenl~elves, that is, if 
mRm is true for all members m of the set S, The synonymy relation has 
this property a word means the same thin% as itself. The antonymy 
relation ANTI does not have this property. It is not rrue tha&, hot 
ANTI be, for example. 
A relation R defined on a set S is said to be e~stric if when- 
ever,b and c are R-related then so are c and b; that is, R is symme.tric 
if and only if bRc always implies cRb. Synonymy also has this property. 
If b is synonymous with c, then c is synonymous with b. So has antonfly. 
Given that hot ANTI sold, we immediately know that= cdd ANTI hot. Tax- 
onomy ie not eymmetric, however. A lion is a kind of mammal, but a 
mammal is not a kind of lion. 
In question answering we may be just as Interested in drawing nega- 
tive conclusions as positive-ones. Thus i~rmay be important to know tliat 
tf bRc is true then cRb must be falae. The term asynmrstrio is used to 
describe a relation R for which bRc and cRb are never both true, at 
$east when b and c are different elements of the stt S. Taxonomy is 
asymmetric and so is the thug interrelation before. If the question 
asks, "Did c happen before b?" and we know that b happened before r, we 
can answer with a confident no. For want of a better term we will say 
that the relr Sion R is mn-synonetrio if it is neither symmetric or &sym- 
metric. In this case bRc and cRb are sometimes both true and sometfmes 
not. Shilarly,  he term imefz.exive is used for the case in which mRm 
is never true, while the term nonreflexit)e is used for the case in which 
mRm is sometfmes true and sometimes not. In the same way intransiti~e 
is taken to mean that if bRc and cRd, we can conclude that b and d are 
not R-related, while nantrcrnsitive will mean that bRd is sometimes true 
if bRc and cRd, but- not always. 
Each lexical relation itself; has a lexical entry. The reflexivity, 
symmetry, and transitivity properties of the relation are listed in this 
entry, as they are in the entries for interrelational operators and 
prepositions and other lexical item for which they are relevant. 
There 
are also lexical entries under the property names, refldvs, irr~~~~vr, 
etc. listing the appropriate axioms. The motivation behind laical en- 
tries for properties is first of all greater generality. 
Secondly, it 
makes it much easier to add lexical relations and to add other properties 
which turn out to be useful. 
At this stage of development there are several transitivity axioms: 
For lexical relations Rel, like taxonomy 
b Re1 c c Re4 d ' b Re1 d 
For interrelations J, like bsfbre 
lloZdsfI(~,~,,Z,)) A RoZda (I(J, Z2,Z3)) Holds (I(J,Z~ ,z$) 
For prepositions Q like in or abave 
Intuitively these are all instances of the same concept, transitivity. 
Theze should be some single way of expressing it. It is a defect of this 
representation system that there is not. 
A relation that is reflexive, symmetric, and transitive Ls called 
an equivalence relation. The synonymy relation is an equivalence relation 
since it has all three properties. If R is an equivalence relation, 
then 
a subset consistrlng of all the elements which are R-related to a parti- 
rtllar element x by the7equivalence relation is called an equivalence class. 
In an equivalence class all the elements are R-related to each other. 
An equi 
vaf ence relation partitions a set into 
equivalence classes ; each element 
of the set belongs to exactly one equivalence claas. The synonymy re- 
lation paftitions the items in the lexicon Ln just this way. There Is 
a class consisting of stcsp%oion and all the words synonymous with 8148- 
phion, like mistmcet and dozibt. These synonymy classes are disjoint; 
each word sense in the lexicon belongs to exactly one of them (cf. 
Edrrmndson and Epstein 1972, Palmer 1976). 
With this ge a basis an equivalence relation of paxaphrasability 
between sentences can be established. Sentence S1 is a paraphrase of 
sentence S2 if one is obtained from the other 3y substituting synonyms 
for each other. 
d 
Mr. Kennedy viewed Lady Laura with suspicion. 
Mr. Kennedy regarded Lady Laura with mistrust. 
We might also allow substitution of conversives, nominalizations, etc. 
Nancy was Sally's student. 
Sally was ~ancy's teacher. 
Sally taught Nancy. 
The equivalence classes of this relation, each one of which is the set 
of all pamaphrases of a given sentence have a definite theoretical im- 
portance and some practical significance in question answering. 
One 
member of a class might well 'be part of the story; another the right 
answer to* a question. 
- - 
I 
This representation system can be viewed as defining a relation P 
such that S1 P S2 if and only if S1 and S2 have the same representa- 
tion. 
If the representation system is well defined, then P should 
define the same equivalence classes as the paraphrasabilitv relatior 
b. Xttt)srses, 
The inverse R of the relation R is the relation which "goes in 
the opposite direction" from R; that is, bRc if and only if cRb. 
Thus, 
bake T make and mke T bake are two ways of saying the same thing. 
Both 
pieces of information are stated in the lexicon. 
However, the lexical 
entry for Eake includes T nuke; the lexical entry for naks includes T 
hake. Why bother to say the same thing in different places? 
There are 
two reasons for this. First of all, 
the inversa relation may be a re- 
lation that is conm~nly and easily verbalized, worth naming in its own 
right. This is certainly true of the CHILD relation, as in pu~py CHILD 
20g. Instead of asking "What is a baby dog called?", we could ask ''What 
is a grow? puppy talled?" or "What does a puppy grow up to be?" 
The 
second reason is that putting this information in both entries can &e 
searches easier and much faster, We may only have one half of the pair 
and need the other. We may have dog and pppy. This is easy if we have 
the information CHILD pppz~ in the dog entry. Othewise we might have 
to search the whole lexicon, In other situations we have two words but 
no direct connection between them. For example, suppose the system knows 
twn T mama2 and maZ T vertebrate and is then asked, 
"Is a lion a 
vertebrate?" The connection betwen Zion and vertebrate can be found 
much more quickly if the search starts *om both the vertebrate end and 
the Zion end of the chain at 
the same time, but to do this there must 
be s pointer to m~mmaZ in the oertebrute entry. 
Another question comes 
- 
to mind. Why call the inverse relation to CHILD by the clumsy name CAaD 
instead of its propel name PARENT? 
The ECD uses t~o different names for 
a relation and its inverse (So and Vo ace inverses, for example). 
If 
this were dane here, two versions of the appropriate axiom schemes would 
be needed, one in the CHILD entry and one in the PMNT entry. 
Since a relation R is called symmetric if bRc alwaye implies cRb, it 
follows that a symmetric relation ie its own inverse. 
The syaonymy re- 
lation S and antonymy relation ANTI are both self-inverse in thie sense. 
- 7 
For this reason we never need the spnbol ANTI, etc. ANTI is MITI The 
entry for hot includes ANTI cold, the entry for cold includes ANTI hot. 
0. (hrique Linkage. 
Raphael (1968) has proposed a property which seems extremely useful. 
He calls it m6qus-Z$nkuge (U). Nathematicians usually.refer to such re- 
latdons as one-to-one. A relation R has the unique-linkage property if 
whenever xRy then bRy is false for any bk and xRc is false for any cry, 
i.e. any object is R-related to at most one other. ~aphael's example 
of unique-linkage is the relation "just to the right of". The behavior 
ie especially characteristic of the queuing relation, e.g. with days of 
the week, Monday Q Tuesday, etc.Some relations may be uniquely linked 
on one side only, e.g. mother-child is uniquely linked on the left. We 
can define UL unique-linkage on the left and UR unique linkage on the 
fight. (A relation which is UR is a single-valued function. If R has 
the UL property, then its inverse is a single-valued function.) 
Raphael also proposed for SIR-1 (ibid, p. 101) a property which he 
calls ixreflexive. R is set-nunreflexive if 
(\lx M)--WBcX) 6!acX) @RBI 
In the SIR model both the 'X is a part of Y' and the 'X is owned by Yf 
relations hwe this property. What $t qays is that every set in the 
model has a minimal element with respect to the relation R. A siapler 
version of th&s property is sufficient for our purposes. 
Minimum ~cM) - ()'Y i X) (32 X) {ZRY) 
Condition Every noneslpty subset has a minLmum. 
Maximum 
WXcM) -- (qr X) (3 Z X) (YRZ) 
Condition Every nonempty subset has a maximum. 
The part-whole relation' has both properties in our model. In any non- 
empty subset in the model there is something in it that is not a proper 
subpart of anything else in that subset, and also something that has no 
proper subpart. A relation that has this property stops samewhere. It 
is not reflexive and not circular, A search that goes on looking for 
links of this kind will stop somewhere. The relation 'is an ancestor of' 
has this property. We will eventually run out of ancestors in one direc- 
tion and descendants in the other, at least, inside a finite model. 
The properties of relations are summarized in Table 4. 
Table 4. properties of Relations 
WL'erW 
symmetric 
'asymmetric 
reflexive 
ixreflexive 
transitive 
intransitive 
unique1 y linked 
~EM) WY tM) (XRY ' YRX) 
~xLM) NY LM) (XRP" YRX) 
~XE bl) WY t M) (~ZE M) (XRY A YRZ -, XRZ) 
uniquely linked 
on the left WEM) WY M) (XRY -' WZ EM) (ZRY ' Z=X) ) 
uniquely linked 
on the right wXEM)(4/Y fM)XRY4 WZ EM){XRZ4 Z=Y)) 
d. Pmtial Ordering. 
Any transitive relation defines a partial ordering. Several of the 
lexisgl relatiohs discueeed earl,ier are transitive; many lexical items 
are transitive too. One important reason for.repr*senting time in 
terns of the transitive interrelatEton before is to allow one to make the 
same kinds of sdmple deductions about time that one can make about taxon- 
omy. Some transitive relations, like taxonomy, are alsb reflexive. In 
this case we talk about a weak order<ng. (X s: Y for numbers is a weak 
ordering.) Some are not reflexive, these are called strong ordering 
relations. (X < Y for numbers is a strong ordering.) The time relation 
before 5s a strong order3ng relation. For any weak ordering there is a 
strong ordering and conversely, Starting with the taxonomy relation T, 
1 I 
for example, a relation TI or proper,taxonomyl' can be defined consisting 
of the pairs x and y for which xTy but x and y are different. Then~Tly 
means that x is a kind of y but different from y. If instead one starts 
with strong ordering relation before, one can deane a weak relation 
"beforel" for which x beforel y means that either x before y or x cooccured 
with y. 
The queuing relation Q is nat itself a partla3 ordering but a partial 
ordering can 'be derived from it. Monday Q Tuesday anLTuesday Q Wednesday, 
but it is false that Monday Q Wednesday. Queuing is an 'immediate successor 
*lation like the relatxon between a natural number n and the next number 
n+l. A relation Q' can be defined such that xQ1y if either xQy or there 
are some objects cl,z2,. ..,z, such that xQzl, z1Qz2, ... znQy. It follows 
immediately that if bQc and cQd then bQ1d. Q', the 'successor' relation, 
95 2 4 
ie now transitive, for if #ltc and cQ1d, then one can find s chain of 
Q-related objects linking b and d just bv cbncatenating the chain 
linking c and d, Rapbl's pair of relations jright and right behave 
this way. The relations "is a child of" and "is a descendant of" are 
alga pafred in this way, 
Kenneth C. Litkowski 
16729 Shea Lane 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20760 
Yummnry 4 
I. Introduction t* 
? . lttitudes Toward 1)Cction 'iriee t? 
3. Previous 'iesearch en 3i ctionaries 4 0 
4.D~scrIption of ilictionnry Contents 4 1~ 
h. Pasip Flodel 1h 
6.Ex~anai.on of the hodel: Foint~ as Definitions 17 
7. Semantic, Structural, and Syntactic Parsing of Oefjni.tions21 
&The Ultimate Bsdel: Foints as Concepts 30 
9.Procedures for Finding the Primi-tIves 33 
1O.Helationshi~ to Xfforts to Sepresent Enowledge in Frames 44 
1 1 , Final Remarks 47 
4ef erences 4s 
Pr pure s 
1.4 typi,cal subgraph of the dictionary di-graph usjnp the 17 
basic model 
2. Subgraph of model wi.th points re~resenting both single 19 
and multi ple definitions 
3.Subgraph of expanded model with grou~ing of definitions 20 
4.Subgraph of a model incorporating a parslng system 22 
5.Baslc .model, verb subgraph example subject to Yule 1 35 
6.Baslc model, verb subgraph example subject to Yule 2 36 
7.Basic model, verb subgraph example subject to Xule 3 '37 
Table 
1. Rec~gni, tlon rules for semantic components 
SUMM (9 l$X 
Ordinary dictionaries have not been given their due, ei- 
ther AH 80ur~e8 of material for natural language understanding 
syetema or as corpora that can be used to unravel the complex- 
ities of meaning and how it is represented. If either of these 
goal8 are aver to be ~chieved, I believe that investigators 
must develop methods for extracting the semantic content of 
dictionaries (or at least for transforming it into a more use- 
ful form). 
It is argued that definitions contain a great deal of in- 
formation about the semantic characteristics which should be 
attached to a lexeme, To extract or surfacke such infarmation, 
it will be necessary to systematize definitions and what they 
represent, probably using semantic primitives. In this paper, I 
deecribe procedures which I have developed in an attempt to ac- 
complish these objectives for the set of verbs in Websterle 
Third New Intern~tional Dictionary (~3). I describe (4) how I 
- 
have'used the structure of the dictionary itself in an attempt 
find semantic primi tive s and how appears that the 
systematization must incorporate a capability for word sense 
diecrimination and must capture the knowledge contained in a 
definition. 
The body of the paper is concerned with demonstrating that 
semantic information can be surf aced through a rigorous analy- 
sis of dictionary definitions. The first step in this process 
reavires- a clom~phenaive framw~ark- within WkLch def iait ions can 
be an~ly~ed. In,dcvelopinp thls framework, we must r~membrr 
thqt ~qch wordlu~erl. in I definl tion is .ilm dc1 ineci in the rl~c- 
tionqry, so that we must be qble to uncsvpr ~nd dc..~? kit!! v1- 
cious circles, The framework must llso be cwable oi rerrt-sent- 
ing traditionql nations of q~nerative grammar to de3l wiTh the 
syntnct~c structure of definltlon~, s~ritable framework ,IF- 
Pears to be arovided bv the theory of lqbrled directrd (T~PILP 
( di,graphs) . 
Using points to represent dictionqry entries ~nd lines to 
represent the relation "is used to defi.neV, two models of the 
dictionary are described. ?rro theee models and from digrwh 
theory, we cqn conclude that there may exist orimi-tive units of 
meaning from which 911 concepts in the dictionary can be 
derlved. 
To determine arimitive concepts, it is necessarv to sub- 
ject definitiuns to syntactic and semantic nsrsinp in order to 
identify characteristics that should be att~chkd to each defi- 
nition. Syntactic parsing such as that implemented for systemic 
grammar by Minograd is the first stea. semantic parser must 
next be developed. Tt appears that definitions themselves, and 
particularly definitions of prep~si.ti~ns (which are used to ex- 
press sense relations), will be of sipi,ficant help :in develop; 
ing such a Darser, Further work is necessary to develon proce- 
dures for surfacing from definitions i.nformation about the con- 
text which must be associ.ated with each sense. It wpears as ib 
this Darser wlll have more ~eneral use for ordlnary discourse. 
5 
These notions lead to the ultimate model of a dictionary, 
where points represent concepts (which nay be verbalized and 
symbolized in more than one lay) and lines represent relations 
(synta~ti,c or aemantk-c) between canoepts. 
Ba ~ed on these models, procedures for f i,nding prirniti-ve 
concepts are described, using the set of verbs and their defi- 
nitions from W3. Specific rules are described, based on some 
elementary graph-th6qre tic principles, structural characteris- 
tics of dictionary de'finitiohs, and the parsing of the defini- 
tions. These rules have thus far reduced the initial eet of 
20,000 verbs to fewer than 4,000, with further reduction to 
cone as all rules are applied, 
It is argued that this approach bears a~ strong relation- 
ship to efforts to represent knowledge in framecr. Although much 
work is needed on the parser and on a computerized version of 
this approach, there is some hope that the parser, if expecta- 
tions are borne out, will be capable of transforming ordinary 
discourse into canonical frame representations, 
6 
1 . INTRODUCTION 
During the pa~t 15 years. scientists in many fields have 
been building a reservoir of knowledge about the semantic char 
acteristics of natural language. Perhaps somewhat inexplicably 
znese developments have for the most part Agnored the semantic 
contenl of dictionaries, despite the fact that even a small one 
contain8 a vast amount of material. Some attempts have been 
made to dent these repositories, but the steps t'aken have been 
tentative and have not yet borne significant fruit, perhaps be- 
cause che sheer volume and scope of a dictionary is so over- 
whelming. As a result, most studies have dealt with only a few 
definitions wj%hout a comprehensive assault on the whole. While 
such studies have led to many insights, it seems that the full 
ugerulness of a dictionary's cantents will be realized only 
when a comprehensive model of its semantic structure is dwel- 
oped, 
Any system intended to provide natural language under- 
standing must necessarily include a dictiona~. If any such 
system is to achieve broad applicability, its dictionary lnust 
cover a substantial pat of the natural language lexicon. For 
this to occur, the developers of a system must either create a 
dictionary from scratch or be able to incorporate an existing 
dictxonary. Given the amount of effort that usually goes into 
development of an ordinary dictionary, the former a1 ternative 
is rather impractical. Bowever, little has been done toward 
meetinn the latter alternative; with wnat follows, I will 
7 
describe the approach which I believe must be followed in 
transforming the contents of an ordinary dictionary for us6 In 
a true naturaX language system, 
In order to be used in a language understanding system, a 
dictionary's semantic contents must be systematized in a way 
that the sense in which a word ia being used can be identified. 
Bbfore thi~ can be done, it is necessary to characterize what 
1s already cantained in each definition. To do this, it seems 
necessary to write the meaning of each definition in terms of 
serpantic and syntac5ic primitives. My purpose in this paper ia 
(1) to describe how to use the dictionary itself to move toward 
idhntification of the primitives, at the same time (2) showing 
how this process can be used (a) to provide the capability for 
discriminating among word senses ( i. e. characterizing; the 
frames into which a given word sense will fit) and (b) to char- 
acteriee knowledge contained or presupposed in a definition. 
Before elhbarking on the description, it-$8 necessary tc 
paint out some limitations whZch shaad be kept in mind as Dhe 
reader proceeds. First, in trying to @resent an overview of my 
approach, I have had to forgo describing the detailed steps 
which I have followed to date. Second, even had I presented a 
full description, I would still have been short of providing 
sufficient details to enable computer implementation of any 
procedures. Third, Since the approach presumgs that cancepts 
represented by the lexicon are tne realizations of many as yet 
unknovin-rrecursive functions to be dl scovered by stripping away 
8 
one-layer at a t~me, results other than procedures to be used 
An stripplpg will not emerge untll all layers have been re- 
moved. (However, I do wrae that the llstripplngm procedures are 
inherently useful, in that they will constitute a parser even 
in the intermea~ase stages.) Fourth, since I have not ha@ ac- 
cess to a computer, which has become essentlalLfor significant 
further progress, I have been unable to determine how far the 
grocedures I have developed would take me, so there iLs an in- 
herent uncertain-ty as to how much further development as needed. 
Notw~thstandlng these limitations, I am hopeful that what is 
prenented will provide a satisfactof.y framework for further iLn- 
vestigations into the contents of dictlonarles. I will comment 
further on these limitahions and how they might be overcome at 
the end of the paper. 
2, ATTITUDB'3 TOWARD DICTION4RIE5 
Many of +he siqnifxcant contributors to the present under- 
standxng of rneanlng (such as Xatz and Fodor 1963, Plllmore 1968 
and - 7971, CHafe 1970, Jackendoff 1974, wlnograd 1972, and 
Schank 9972) have generally lgnored dictlonarles. Yet, each has 
presented a formulai~ structure for lexical entrhe5 to serve as 
a bas= for the creation of a rlew dictionary 4lthough their 
perceptions abouti the nature of language are well-established, 
thei? formellsms for lexxcal entries have not taken advantage 
of the equally well-establ~shed praetlces of lexicography. 
The rationale underlslng the development of new fommalisms~ 
ex~rer~sed in some cases and ~m~llcrt t;n others, ids that lexlcal 
9 
entries in dictionaries am unsatisfactory DeCAuse they do not 
contain sufficient infomation. These formali-sms thus require 
that semantic features such as 1lanirnateft or "statew be appended* 
to particular ent*ies. While it is true that ordinary diotio- 
nary entries do not overtly identify all appropriate features, 
this may be lees a dlfficulhg inherent in definitions than the 
fact thst no one has developed the necessary mechanisms for 
surfacing features from definitions. Thus, for examp3.e. ltnurse1' 
may not have the feature llanLmatew in its definition, but 
t?nuraew is defined as a ltwomanw which fs defined ad a tlpersonw 
~hich is defined as a 1"beingfl" which "Ys defined as a "living 
thingw; this string seems sufficieht te estabaish "nurseN as 
"anirnatell. In general, it seems that, if a semantic feature is 
essential to the meaning ofa particular entry, it is similarly 
necessary %Hat the feature be discoverable within the semantic 
structure of a dictionary, Otherwise, there is a defect in one 
or more definitione, or the dictionary- contains some internal 
inconsistency. (Clearly, it is beyond expectation that any pre- 
~nt dictionary will be free of these problems.) 
The possibility of defective definitions has also  gene^-- 
ated crf ticiams, more direct than above, on the potential use- 
fulness Of a dictionary. On one Hand definitions are viewed as 
"deficient in the presentation of relevant dataw since they 
provide meanin- bv ueing "substitutable words (i.e. by syn- 
onyms), rather than by listing distinctive femtureafl (Nida 
1975 : 172) . On another hand-, the proliferation of meanings 
10 
attached to an entry is viewed as only a case of "apparent 
polyeenyN which obscures the more general meaning of a lexeme 
by the addition of "redundant features already determined by 
the environmentft (Bennett 1975:4-1.1). Both objections may have 
much validity and ts that extent would necessitate revisions to 
iqdividu& or sets of definitions. However, neither viewpoint 
is sufficient' to preclude an analysis of what actually appears 
in any dictionary. It is possible that a cbmprehensive analysis 
might more readily surface such difficulties and make their 
amelioration (and the consequent improvement of definitions) 
that mu& easier, 
Xven though dictionaries are viewed somewhat askance by 
many who study meaning, it seems that this viewpdint is influ- 
enced more by the difficulty o* systematically tapping their 
contents than by my substantive objections which conclusively 
establish themas ~seless repositories of semantic content. 
However, it is necessary to demonstrate that a spstematic 
app~oach exists and can yield useful results. 
3, PREVIOUS RESXARCN ON DICTXONARIES 
Notwithstanaing the foregoing direct and indirect criti- 
cisms. some attempts have been made to probc the nature and& 
structure of dictionary definitions. A review of relevant as- 
pects QI- two such studus will help the niaterial presented here 
stand out in sharper relief. 
Olney 1968 describes the conceptual baais of many pro$eett- 
ed routines for processing a machine-readable transcript of 
11 
Webster ' s Seveqth New Collq&ate Dictionary (~7). The primary 
objectives of these routines were the development of 
"(a) rules for obtaining c-ertain of the senses described 
for W7 entries from other senses described for the 
same entries or from senses described for other W7 
entries from which the first (at least in typical 
cases) were derived morphologically; and 
(b) semantic wmponents and rules for combining them to 
yield specifications of senses that cannot convenient- 
ly be obtained br rules refer~ed to in (a) above." 
(ibid. : 6) 
Although these objectives me reasonable, they do not take ad- 
vantage of the possibility that the semantic structure of a 
dlictionary might be a unlfied whole. As a\ result, an8 routines 
that are developed seem to require the serendipitous perception 
of patterns. Further, i0 a dictionary does have a unified se- 
mantle stpucture, it is not clear that a rule relating meaning 
to form wil-1 be relevant toga model' of the semantic structure 
even though interesting results might emerge. It seems n-ces- 
sary to have some comprehensive view that will permit un to 
kaW whether a particular rule is well-formed. This lack of ob- 
jective criteria also im~erils any anaIysis- that selects a sub- 
set of definrrions for detailed analysis. The selection of a 
subset of the dictionary shoulcl. arise from wll-defined a pri- 
ori considerations mmer than an intuition that a particular 
12 
wbset seems to be related, An example of this intuitive ag- 
proach appears ~JI Simmons 1975 and 1976. 
rn Quillian 1968, the analysis of dictionary definitions 
was part of a study of semantic memory, and for that reason was 
noP concerned with the full development of a dictionary model. 
In that study, a person determined the mesning of a concept 
when he "looked up the 'patriarch1 ward in a dictionary, then 
looked up every word in each of its definitions, then looked up 
every word f6hnd-in each of those, and so on, continually 
branching outward until every word he could reach by this pro- 
cess had been Looked up once." This process was never actually 
carried out because (1) not all words in a dictionary were used 
in the computer files, (2) the process was terminated when a 
common word was found in comparing the meanings of two words, 
and (3) there was a bellef that there are no primitive ward 
concepts. The termination of a search 3x designed was necessary 
in any event since, without my restrictions, it is likely that 
a large part of the dhztionary would have been reached on every 
occasion, More importantly, Quillian did not fully consider 
wHat was happening when branching led to a word already encoun- 
tered, namely, that a definitional circularity was thereby un- 
covere6 Such circularities which mi-ght be vicious cir-cles, 
must be treatea specially (as will be shown below), and hence, 
Quillian8 s unrestricted branching should have been mdifbed. 
Quill ian also overlooked the. possibility that a concept common 
to two qatriarchs is more primitive than either. The continued 
comparison of more and more primitive concepts, along with re- 
stricti~ns on the outward branching, implies that primitiive 
concepts actually do 
Based on these observations, I take, as a working hypoth- 
esis, the assumption that a dictionary may be a unified whole 
with underlying primitive conce~ts. ' With thin beginning, it is 
necessary to articulate a mod& of the dictionary which will 
permit an identifiqatian of the primitive concepts through the 
application of well-defiaea rules or procedures. It is proposed 
that what follows constitutes the first steps toward meeting 
this objective, 
4. DXSRIPTIBN OF -- UICTIONRHY . . CONTENTS 
Since a dictionary contains much material, it is first 
necessary to delineate exactly what is to be modeled-? For thi~s 
purpose, it is assumed that the semantic content of a dictio- 
nary essentially resides within its defi.nitions, thereby ex- 
cluding from formal analysis such things as the pronunciation, 
the etymol~gy, and illwtrative examples. s presently con- 
celvea, the analysis will focus on the ward belng defined 
(hereafter called Ehe main entry) , the definitions ( including 
sense numbers and letters used as delimiters) , part-of-speech 
I 
No dictianary is likely ta satisfy thls assumption, which is 
only a theoretically desirable characteristic. The assumption 
enables us to exclude the definienda from the models, 
2 
In the interests of space, I have glossed over B large number 
of intricacies that would have to be dealt with in arriving 
at a machine-readable hnscript suitable for analysis. 
Several pages would be reqyired to describe them fully. 
labels, status or usage labels, and usage notes. The manner in 
which these features will be employed will be made clear as the 
analysis proceeds. 
The hypothesized unified nature of a dictionary arises 
from the fact that definitions are expressed by werds which are 
3 
4180 defined (i., there is no semantic metalangua~e). If we 
wish to understand the meaning of a given definition, then we 
must first understand the meanings of its constituent w&dse 
Since each constituent corresponds to a main entry, then, in 
order to understand the meaning of the given definition, we 
mus% understand the meaning of the constituent wards1 defini- 
tions, Continued repetition of the process is nothing more than , 
the outward branching process described by Quillian; however, 
as mentioned before, we must make this branching more disci- 
plined in order to deal with vicious circles and avoid unwanted 
circularities, 
If we are to have a fully consistent dictiona~y, its model 
must show how each definition is related to all others. Thus, 
for each definition, X, the model should enable to identify 
( 1) those definitions of the constituent wordr of X that apply 
and those that do not apply, and (2) the production rules that 
generated X from these definitions. For exampl,e, in the defini- 
tion of tqe noun broadcast, "the act of spreading abroadu, 4 it 
There are some exceptions to this assertion, such as groper 
names, . biological caxa, and other special symbols, a s pointed 
out by the Journal's referee. 
15 
is necessary that the model indicate (1) which of the defini- 
tions of --- the, act, of, spread, and abroad apply, and (2) the 
production rules by which - the and ___I_ act 
and all other colloca- 
tions) occur together. If this can be done for each definition 
in the dict~onary, and if any inconsistencies are reconciled, 
then, as will be shown, it should be possible to find the prim- 
itive concepts in the dictionary and to transform each defini- 
tion mto a canonical f Drm. 
5, - BJSIC MODEL 
The theory of (labeled) directed graphs (digraphs)5 is 
used as the formalism for the modds. Digraph 'theory deals wj th 
the abstract notions of lfpointsff and "directed linest1 ; its 
applicability to the problem before us therefore depends on how 
these notions are interpreted. In this respect, it 1s important 
to distinguish tpe manner in which this theory is used here 
from the manner in which it previously has been used in seman- 
tics and linguistics. The two most common uses are (1) where 
trees display phrase and syntactic structures (cf. Kate and 
Fodor 1963), or (2) where directed graphs portray the seguena 
tial generation of words in a se~tence or phrase lcf. Simmons 
1972). In these cases and others (cf. Quillian 1968 and Ben- 
nett 1975) graphs are used primarily as a vehicle for display 
All definitmns ueed in this paver are taken from Websterts 
. - 
Third New International ~iction&ry, Eficyclopaed~a Britannica, 
Chicago, 1965. 
Terminolqy for digraphs follows Rarary 1965. 
16 
and no results from graph theorv are expPicitly employed to 
d>aw further inferences. However, as used here, g~aphs consti 
tute an essential basis for the analysis and hence will play an 
integral role in a nulrrber of assertions that are made. 
In the simplest model, a point can be interpreted as rep- 
resenting all the definitions appearinpunder a single maln en- 
try; the main entry word can be construed as the label for that 
point. The part-of-speech labels, status or usage labels, and 
usage notes are considered integral to the definitions and may 
be viewed as part of a set of characteristics of the individual 
defxnitions. A directed line from x to y will be used to repre- 
sent the asymmetric relation "x is used to define yu; thus, if 
the main entry x appears exactly or in an inflected form In a 
definition of y, then xRy. (This does not preclude a distinct 
line for yRx or XRX.) Therefore, we can establish a point for 
every main entry in a dictionary and draw  he appropriate di- 
rected lines to form a digraph consisting of the entire dictim 
nary. (~hls digraph may be disconnected, but probably is not.) 
An example., which 1s a subggaph of the dictibnary digraph, 1s 
shown in Figure 1 on the next page. Xxcept for broadcast, only 
the labels of each point are shown, but each represents all the 
definitions appearing at its respective main entry. The direct- 
ed line from - act to broadcast corresponds to the fact tha* "act - 
is used to define broa@castn, since its token appears in "tfle 
act of spreading abroad". In this model, the token "spreadingH 
is not represented by a point, since it is not a main ertry. 
broadcast (the act of 
spreading abroad) 
the 
- 
act 
- - of spread abroad 
Figure 1. A typical subgraph of the dlcfionary 
digraph using the baszc model. 
Since the definition shown iLs not the only one for broadcast, 
thls point has additional ancorning lines which ape not shown. 
The resultant digraph for even a small dictionary i.S ex- 
tremely large, perhaps consibsting of well over 100,000 points 
and 1,000,000 lines. Clearly, such a digraph provides little 
fin& structure, but even so, it does have some utility. The 
manner, i.n whdch it can be used is descr,i.bed 9n Section 9. 
6. EXPANSION OF THL MODXL: POIN_S 45 DEFINITIONS 
Lett5ng each poi.nt in the basic model represent all the 
definitions of a main entry provides very lfttle del?neatAon of 
subtle gradations of semantic content. As a first step toward 
understanding this content, it seems worthwhile to let each 
point represent only one definition. However, the basic model 
will not trivially accommod&te such a spec~ficataon i~rimarily 
because of the interpretation gzven tg the directed llne), and 
thus it must first be modified, 
In the basic model, the exzstence of a line between two 
points, x and y, assertr that xRy, I., "r 1s used to define 
yB1. Sfnce the points represent all the Cieflnltlons under the 
main entries, the existence of a line arises from the simple 
fact that x appears in at least one of yes definitions. ff the 
point y represents only one definition, say y , there 4s no 
3 
dlfflculty in saylng that xRyj. However, if we wf sh every polnt 
to represent only one definltlon, then we must frind the deflnl- 
tlon of x, say xl, for whlch xlHy is true. Referrinp to the 
3 
subgraph An Figure 1, this amounts to determining, for example, 
which def-inition of abroad b is used to defi.ne the token ltabroad" 
inn "the act of spreading abroadN, that js, finding the i such 
that "abroad,Rthe act of spreading ab-roadfl or 
It should be intuitively clear 'that 3nterpretation of 
points as amgle @efPn.itfons is desirable. However, there are 
no a prior1 crateria by which the appropritate value of i can be 
determhed, and hence there is no immediate transformation of 
the basic model hnto a model where each mint represents one 
qefinition. Sance th~s objective is wollth pursuing, it 3s there- 
fore necessary to develop criteria or rules according to which 
the desired transformation can be made. 
In the appli.catAon of rules that may be deueloped, it will 
be convenient to make use of a model intermediate between the 
basic one and the one atlth points as definitions. For this pur- 
pose, we can comblne the two models by employlng a trivial ze 
lation, xLRx, which says that the ith defAnltion of x is used 
to define x; this holds for all definitions of x. The line re- 
flecting xRy would remain in the mqdel, so that the digraph 
(the act of 
spreading abroad) 
broadcast 
wide -area) large) '&$art) 
Figure 2. Subgraph of model witn points representing 
both eingle and multiple defiqJ tiom. 
would show both xlRqdand xRy and x would l5e a carrier, .as il- 
j 
lustrated in Tigure 2. In this case, the unsubscripted abroad 
represents all the definitions of I abroad (olny some of whia 
are shown). If and when suitable criteria establish, for ex- 
ample, ikat abroad,, but not abroad --2 * abroad ,..., 
3 
fits chc 
context of the token llabroadn in-thr definition of broadcas i, 
it would then be possible to draw a line directly from ?broad1 
to broadcast without the intermediation of the ansubscripted 
Roint abroad, thus eliminating* paths from abroad*, abr~ab~, . . ,* 
This model thus includes the points of' the basic model and 
adds mints to represent each individual definition in the dic- 
tionary. The lines betwen these points ensure that no relatian 
in the basic made1 is lo&*. As described in the example, 'it is 
necessary to develop rules according to which the points repre- 
senting more than one definition can be eliminated or bypassed, 
80 that the Only relatl ons, xRy, that remain are such that x 
and y are poi~ts which represent one definition, 
It way happen during the application of rules that some 
lines to a carrler will be eliminatgd with more than one st111 
remaining. In such a case, it will still be useful to modify 
the digraph as much as possible. For example, if xRy in the 
basic nlpdel, whepe x has m definitions and y has n, and xRy is 
3 
the ejrpanbd model, then x, ,. . . ,xmRyJ. It may be that mme Crk- 
terion indicates that, say x, ,x2Ryj but that xg . , x,Ry When 
j' 
this occurs, we can create points xa and xbesuch that 
X, ,9c2flxa xaRyj, and x . . ,x Rxb, but with no line from xb to 
3'* rn 
Yj 
, as illust~ated in Figure 3. The utility of thu type of 
abroadl abroad 
- 3 
abroad 
4 abroad, 
Figure 3. Subgraph of expanded. model 
with grouping of dbfinitions. 
grouping will be demonstrated in Section 9. In any event, since 
maw criteria will eventually be requj red in the elimination of 
points representing two or more bfinitions. this abklity to 
group definitjons is a necessary mechanism for modeling inter- 
mediate descriptions of the dict~onarj. (It should be noted 
here that all such points will not be elimina fed; those that re- 
main will indicate an essential ambiguity in the dictionary; 
this is further discu%sed in Section 8.) 
7. SEMANTIC, STRUCTURAL, AND SYNTACTIC PARSING OP DEFINITIONS - 
The basic ad expanded models, exampled in Figures 1, 2, 
and 3, do not portray any of the meaning of the di~tiohary, but 
rather indioate where particular relationships exist. In fact, 
these two models portray only the relation "is used to definett 
as if there is no other relation between definitions. This ap- 
proach does not capture some very important elements that go to 
make up a definition. 
Instead of being analyzed directly into its ultimate con- 
stituents, a6 in Figures 1 and 2, the definition, "the act of 
spreading abroad", should fir-.,st be br*en down into sub~hrases 
and then into its ultimate qnstf tuents, s s in Figure 4, shown 
on the next page. A-desirable property of the new pointe is 
that they have the syntactical structure ox derinitions; Thus, 
ff the act" and ftspreading abmad" have the form of noun def ini- 
tionsy "spread abroad" has the form of a verb definition: and 
nof spreading abroadN (not shown, but feasible under a diTfes- 
ent parsing) has the form of an adjective definition. This 
would elfminam such combinations as "act afll or the". The 
poinss represen-ung pbase consti-tuenta of a def-bni ti on thus 
have the form of definitions, but lack a label. 
The absence or presence of a label seems to make no dif- 
ference in understagding the definition represented. In fact, 
(the act of spreading abroad) 
- 
the act of spxead 
- - - 
aaoad, abroad* 
(over a (At 
( spreading abroad) 
( spread abroad) 
( ::::a:a 
wide drea) 
(at large) 
wlde area 1 arge) 
Figure 7. Sulgraph of a model ina ~rporatlrrg a parsing system. 
it seems val.id to represent identically worded definitions or 
phrase constltuenfq, regardless ~f the number of main entries 
under which they appear, by a single point with multiple labels. 
Thus, if each of the main entries disperse, scatter, and A dia- 
tribute has a definition verbalized as spread abroadtt, these 
three words can be labels of the point lfspread abroad" jn Fig- 
ure 4. auch a construction has no effect on the analysis of 'the 
definition "the act of spreading abroad" or "spread abroad" as 
showr in F~gure 4, and si,miiarly, the analysis there would have 
no effect on any analysis involv ng disperse, scatter, or - dis- 
tribute. Since thtre is a large number of fnstances where du- 
plicate wording appears in a dictionary, the approach given 
here would effect a substantial reduction in the she of the 
digraph. (This is not to say that the words diapePse, scatter, 
and distribute haua ae same meaning, but rather that in some 
instances these words can express the same concept.) 
The definition, X, "the act of spreading ,ibroad!' is es- 
sentially an entity unto itself. The definitimns of its compo- 
nent words have similar independence, However, lkke atoms in 
molecslles, we need to identify those forces which hold the com- 
ponents %ogether a~ld which endow the whole with whatever char- 
a'ct3ristlcs it has. The d@ finitions of the component words may 
require several worde for their expression. but'thev are sym- 
eoliwd %y one word in the definition X; even so the symbol 
and the definition both represent the same entity, which has 
certain charactefisCics enabling it to be acted upon by ce~tain 
forces. These characteristics are the semantic, ~tructural, md 
syntactic properties of defihitions, and the forces are the 
production rules by which the entities (i. the component def- 
initions or their symbols) are brought together. A definition 
may be viewed as the realization of such rules operating on the 
chgiraeteristics of other definitions. The nerculean task before 
us is to build a parsing system or recognition grammar which 
 ill articulate the e%xracteristics %o be attached to each def- 
inition and which wul capture the production rules necessary 
to portray the relationships between definitions. The remainder 
of this section will present my ideas on how to approach this 
task. 
The pT.ocess which I have used IUL. finding primitives en- 
tails showing that one definition is derived from another 
thereby excluding the former as a candidate for being primi- 
tive. Such a demonstration of a derivational relationship re- 
quires a parser. Each pattern which I observe b6 tween defini- 
tions helps to exclude fu~ ther definl tions and simultaneausly 
becomes part o? the parser. As 2 result, identincation of the 
charatteristics Lo be attached to eacfi def~nition does not have 
to *be accomplished all at once; as will bacome clear below, our 
purposes can be served as the components of thc parser sre de- 
t 
Ilneated. Thug, success does not require trill n~ticulat~nn of 
the parser before any parsing is init~ated. The following rep- 
resents genegal observations about the form of the parses as it 
has emerged thus  fax^. 
The rirst set of characteristics would result from the 
syntactic parsing of each definition. The purpose of this step 
would be simply to establish the syntactic pattern of each def- 
inltion. The output of this step would be similar to that gen- 
erated by Winoqrad (1972) in h~s parser. The 'dictionaryt for 
the parser would be the very lictionary we are analyzing, al- 
though only the main entry, its inflectional forms, and its 
part-of-speech label would be used in this step. Ambiguous 
parsings and failures would be kicked out; the failures in 
particular, would provide an excellent source for refinlng the 
parser used by Winograd. Clewly, this step is fiat trivial, and, 
it might even be argued that it is beyond the state-of-the-art. 
25 
However, by using a corpus as large as a dictimnary and by 
kicking out failures and ambiguities, I believe that this step 
will significant3 advance the state-of-the-art 
The second set of characteristics would be determined from 
a semantic parsing of the definitions, that is, an attempt to 
identify the cases snd semantic components present within each 
definition. For this study I have found the followinp; dis- 
tinction to be useful: 4 case is a semantic entity which is not 
intrinsic to the meaning of a word, e.g. that eomeone ~s an 
agent of an action, whereas a component; 1s an intrinsic pert of 
the meaning, e.g. a human being is animate It is necessary to 
artl culate recognition rules for determining that a particular 
case or semantic component is present The 1ittA.e thdt has been 
done ta develop such rules has &en based prl~arily on syntw- 
tic structures or a prlorl assertions that a given case or con- 
ponent is present. Despite the recc mized deficiencj es of dic- 
tionaries, I be3ieve that it is possible to-bring much greater 
rigor to such rules with evidence gleaned directly fi om the 
definitions. For example, - cut has a definition, "penetrate with 
an ins%rurnenVt ; this defin~tion irJould be parsed as having the 
instrument case. (Note also that this definition makes the in- 
strument case intrinsic to cut.) Havnver, in most cnnen. it 
will be necessary to examine the definitions of the ,constituent 
woras. For example, the verb knife has the definition, tf cut 
- 
with a knifetf; although it is quite obvzous in this instance 
that a knife is an instrument, rigor demands that we go to its 
aef inltlons where we flnd, " a sample instrument . . . ". 4 great 
leal of analysls may ultimately be requlred to discern the in- 
trash character~atics to be attached to a definition, but I 
beli-eve that many of these can come from the dictionary itself 
rather than grom ~ntuition. 
Although the nuaber of cases and components discussed in 
the literature is nut very large, the number of ways dn whlch 
they may be expressed, at least &n English, is slgnlficantly 
larger. In addition, there is sl ell a large amount of ambigutty, 
e , not every form spec.if.ically indicates the presence of a 
particular case. For example, a defjnaon, "act - with haste" 
does no$ indxcate that "hasteft An an instrument: rather, "with 
haste" expresses a manner of actlng. Unraveling all these nu- 
ances requires a great deaE of effort. However, it appears that 
a partlcalarly good source of help i,n this endeavor might be 
found in the definitions of preposlti~ks (which are used pr3- 
manly to indicate sense relations). 
Bennett 1975 found it possable to express the meaning of 
spatial and temporal pregosit:ions (a high percentage of all 
prepositions) with only 23 components. However, in Websterls. 
the number of then deflnltions is at least two ordera of mag 
nJ tudes hlgher. The d~fference seems to he in the "apparenC 
polysemyu vrh~ch, as Bennett says, arlses from the lncluszon in 
preposl tl onal definltlons of "redundant features already deter- 
mined by the enylronment". In other words, many preposit,ional 
def~nltlons contam lnformatlon about the context surrounding 
27 
the pr~osition, pa~ticularly what sort of entities are related 
by the prepositions. My examination of verb defintions contain- 
ing prepositions haa led to the observation of many noticeable 
word patterns, i.e. collocations, which appear to be uaful xh 
the recognition ~f cases. For example, one definition of - af 
states that its object indicates something irom which a person 
or thing- is delivered". In examining verb definitions, there 
appears to be a distinct set of verbs with which tnls sense is 
used in the following frame ft( transit Sve verb) (ooject) of ( some- 
thing)". The verbs that fit the slat are exemplified by free, 
clear, relieve, and - rld. Thus, if this pattern appears, the ob- 
ject of the preposition can be assigned the meaning It something 
from which a person or thing is blivered". cfChrough the use of 
prepositional bfinitions in this way, I have therefore been 
able to articulate some semantic recognition rules by which the 
arllst, or cage of a noun phrase the object c P a preposition) 
can be identified. My use of this technique has barely begun, 
so that it? is presently unclear whether this appmach will suf- 
fice to discldse all the caE informatl~n that we wish to iden- 
tify ~ith a senantic parser, but if not it will tfertainly make 
significant strides toward this objective. 
Parsing of a definition according to the greceding notions 
is still not sufficient to identify'the semantic components 
which should be attached to a main entry, since much af the se- 
rmntic content is only present by virtde of -the definition's 
constituent wsrds. Thus, a compl ete rendering of a definnion' s 
28 
semantic content must be derived from the sernantlc characte~is- 
tics of Its constituents, in a recursive fa~hiong all the way 
down to the primitives. Although -identification of these primi- 
tives is the primary go-1 of the aoproach being presented here, 
and Wce, intrinsically incomplete until the analysls is com- 
pleted, the set ol semantic characteristics for a particular 
definitian can be developed as we proceed towdrd our goal. Yo 
do this, it will be necessary to articulate rules whlch indi- 
cate hou semantic characteristics may be transmitted from me 
definition to another. An example of such a rule is: If the 
noun X possesses the semantic component "animatem, and if X iti 
the noun genus) the noun 
Y will also have the component ltanimate". Another exarhple is: 
If a verb X has a definition x whlch has been parsed as having 
an instrument case, and X is the core verb of a definitlor, y 
3 
of Y, and y. also has been parsed as having the instrument case, 
J 
then the instrument in J is "a type ofs tne i~istrurnent ia xi. 
j 
It will also be necessary to articulate other derivational 
(such as the application of a causative derivation to a state 
vqb) and transformational (such as the application of a rrer- 
undid transformation to any verb) rules. This process of de- 
lineating how semantic characteristics are trmsmitted will at 
fhe same time give more meaning to the lines of the diotionary 
d~graph than simply "is used to definett. 
The third, and final, set Q-f characteristics $hat must be 
attached to a definition is a s~ecifieation of the context that 
must be present if that def rn~tlon intended. The context re& 
stnc~lons may requme mat the deflnlendum must be used in a 
particular syntactical way, for example, as a trms~l lvn or in- 
translkive verb. Usage restrict&ons may speclfy the presence of 
partlcdar wor& such as particles or objects. For example, 
there is a distinct set of defin~tions for the ~dlom - take -.I out 
whrch thus requlres the presence of the partlcle "outll zn addl- 
tion tc the verb. One definition of the transityve verb chuck 
- 
requires the object Itbaseballt1. Other defln~tlons may requlre a 
speclflc subaect. ~~nilly, there are sernant1-e restrlttlons that 
may be dis~ernlble only from the definition itself. For examp3re 
two deflnltlons of the verb chew r re: "to give new hope toit 
7and llllft from olscouragement, dejection, or sadness to a more 
happy state"; lf the seco~d deflnltlon 1s- uatended, it seems 
necessary that the context lndlcate the prlor state of dlscour- 
agement, de jectlon, or sadness, slnce we cannot presume such a 
state, for someone mlght have been zin a happy or non-sad state 
dnd simply recelved some new hope. In the absence of the neces- 
sary context, we would default to the flrst defmxtlon. 
Thus far in my research, I have not devoted any effart to- 
ward, developln~ ~rocedures for prescrlblng the context based o* 
the deflnat~on. I expect that lnltlat~on of thls step'wlll ben- 
eflt f~pm further results of the first two steps. 
Although the parslng system outllned in thls section may 
appear to be exceedingly cornplaw, such an eventuality is not 
unex~~cted. The character1s"t~os to be attached to each def in&- 
30- 
tion are not significantly different from those proposed by 
Fillmore 1971. It is also important to no-ce xnax some of the 
goals of analyzing the contents of a dictionary are to reduce 
the amount of redundancy, to remcnre vicious circles, ad to 
represent the meaning 6f a word in a more efficient way. Hope- 
fully, this type of analysis would eventually leqd to a sub- 
stantial reduction in the size of a dictionary; the prospects 
for thls are considered further in the next section, 
8. THE ULTIMATE MODEL: POINTS AS CONCEPTS 
At this juncture, it is necessary to ask whether the 
points of the digraph models sufficiently corl espond to meaning 
as we wish it to be represented. In the two models described 
thus far, ,the analysis of a definition was deemed complete when 
the appropriate definitions of the const$tuent words had been 
identdfied. This situation 1s not entirely, satisfactory, since, 
if a constituent word has more than one definition that applies, 
the definitior being analyzed is subject to more than one in- 
terpre bation and hence may be called ambiguous with respect to 
that constituent. For example, if the two definrtions of abroad, 
"over a wide -nrea" an4 "at largeH, fit the definition of broad- 
cast to yield either Itthe act of spreading over a wide areat1 or 
"the acd of spreading at larget1, it is not legitimate to ex- 
clude one. This situa Lion is only a reflection of the fact that 
natural language is almost always somewhat ambiguous. However, 
in accepting this fact, it is necessary that we incoqorate it 
into our models, 
Parts of the parsing system described in the last section 
will help to discriminate and select those defini-ti~ns of a con- 
stltuent word whioh fit n given context. As the parser is re- 
fined, the candidates for a particular context will be narrowed 
as described in Section 6, but many instances will remain where 
more than one del hition fits the context. We might say that 
any point representing more than one definition thus consti- 
tutes an ambiguity. Viewed differently, we might also scy that 
the context is not sufficient to distinguish among all the def- 
itions of a word, In other words, we can-tbLamer the ambigu? 
ity on the context.. 
We must expect that ambiguity will be present in the dic- 
tionary and deal with it on that basis. Fgr purposes of illus- 
tration, let us say that abroad shown in FLgure 4 1s one such 
point. To remove such points from the d graph, we must make two 
points for the definition oj broadcast, ope repsmenting "the 
act of spreading abraaditt and one representing "the act of 
spreading abroad2". These two points use the same words for ex- 
pressin$ a definition and will-be distinguishable only by the 
fact that their underlying definitions are different. Because 
of this situation, it is no longer valid to say that a point of 
the model represents a definition: rather, we will say that a 
point represents a lfconceptfl. 
It is also pessibxe that the concepts represented by two 
or more points can be shown to be equivalent. Ihe concept, *'the 
act of spreading absoadft, has men shown to be equivalent to 
"the act of spreading over a wide arealt. If the latter phrase- 
ology appears under some main entry, say distribution, then 
bath it and the definition of broadcast would eventually be an. 
slyzed in the same way. We will say that both expressions may 
represent the same concept and hence are equivalent at least to 
this extent. (since the-other definitions of these words would 
be dif fwent they are not totally equivalent.) This concept 
will thus be represented by one point, labeled by either - broad- 
cast or distribution and equi'ra1ent.l~ verbalized as '!the act of 
7 
spreading or "the act of spreading over a wide 
This interpretation is a reflection of the fact that in ordi- 
nary speech a single coacept may be verbalized in mbre than one 
way, 
The observations in this sectlon lead to the following de- 
scription of the 'ultimate' model: The semantic content of a 
dictionary may be represented by means of a digraph in which 
(1) a point represents a distinct concept, 
which may be verbal- 
ized in more than one way and may have more than one label, and 
to which is appended a set of syntactic, semantic, and usage 
features, and (2) a line represents an instance bf some one of 
a set of cxperators which act on the verbalizations or labels of 
a point according to the feafures of that point to ield the 
parametric values of another point. It should go without saying 
that the cpmplete portrayal of a dictionary according to this 
model requir,es a considerable amouht of further work; nonethe- 
jess, I believe that the model provides the appropriate- frame- 
work for describing a dictionary. 
9. PROCBDURBS . FOR FINDING THE PRIMIEIVES 
In Section 3, I stated that the model of a dictionary 
shouid permi t Lhe transformation of each definition into i ta 
pqimitive- components. Based on the pneceding deacriptl ws. it 
is sugge~ted tha-c tHe 1x1~ articulatio~ of the ultimate model 
wxll satiqfy this objective for the following reasons: ( I) An 
elementary Fheorem in the theory of digraphs1 maerts that every 
digraph has a poin, basis, that is, a set of points from which 
every point in the digraph may be reached. Since points repre- 
sent concepts in the ultimate model, it seems reasonable to as- 
sert that the point basis of its tligraph represents the set 09 
prirnftive concepts out of which all bthers iri the dictionary 
may be formed. Based on the characteristics of the mints in 
that model, it is possible (and perhape even necessary) that 
each primitive cancept would be verbalized in several ways and 
symbolised in several way$ (as will be shown below) (2) Since 
the digraph has a finlte number of points and lines, the sets 
of primitive concepts and operators are also finite. 
It dllly remains Do ?find the primitive concepts; this will 
be done by applying rules, based oh the models and the parsing 
system, ta identify words and definitions which cannot %be prim- 
itives. Essentially, the assertion that a word or definition is 
non-prim~tive requires a showlng that it is derived from a more 
primitive concept and that a primitive cannut be derived from 
58 
34 
it. These non-primitives can be set aside and their Pull syn- 
tactic and semantic characterization can be accamplished after 
the primitives have been identified. Although no primitives 
have yet been identifieti (since the described procedures have 
not been fully applied), then form and nature will be delin- 
eated, 
To dernoqstrate the validity of my approach, 1 have bPe~ 
applying rules developed thus far t'o the set of verbs in - Web- 
sterr's Thud New Internatronal Dictionary ( 20,000 verbs and 
their 111,000 definitions). This set was chosen because of 
their importance (cf. Chafe 19'70) and the (bare) feasibility of 
coping with them manually (although it may be another 3-4 years 
before I am finisheh,. at my current rate of progress). I have 
attempted to formulate my procedures with some rigor, keeping 
in mind the ultimqte necessity of computerieat~on. I have de- 
veloped some detailed specifications for some of my procedures, 
envisioning the use of computer tapes developed by Olney, but 
have not completed these since I do not presently have acoess 
to a computer. 
Despite the focus on verbs, it will become clear that 
words from other nnrts of speech are inextricably involved in 
the analysis. Also, the rules that are presented can, for the 
most part. be applzed to other parts of speech. lotwithst;indi?lg 
the fact that the meaning of many verbs is derived in part from 
nouns and adjectives, I believe that each verb definition alsu, 
contains a primitive verb constituent. 
Lacn vero aeunltlon conslsts of a core verb (~bllgatory) 
and some dlfferenxlae (opt~onal).    he deflnxtions of other 
parts of speech have a similar structure, i.t. a core unit fron 
the same part of speech and some hfferentlae.) The subgraph of 
the total dictionary digraph formed by core verbs accords fully 
wlth the models described LJI Sectlane 4, 5, and 7. Therefore, 
any rules developed on the basls of those models wlll apply 
equally to the verb subgraph. We need only keep An m~nd that 
the differentiae come from other parts, of speech and become em- 
bodied ~n the core verb. Thrs 1s Bow the verb - cu% comes to have 
the lnstrurnent case ~ntrinslcally. To begln the analysis, we 
will let E represent the set of those vnrb deflnltlons whlch 
have been Adentifled as non-prlmxtlve; ~nltlally, thls set i& 
empty. 
Rule 1'. 4f a verb maln entry is not used aa the core unlt 
I 
- 
of any verb definltlon in the axctlonary,' then all its defznl- 
tlone-may be placed in B. (Thas rule applles to points of the 
baslc model whlch have outdegreq 0, 1. e. no outgolng ilnes. ) 
Slnce no points can be reached \from such a verb, ~t cannot be 
Flgure 5. Basic model, verb subgraph 
example subject to Rule 1. 
primltlve. 131 Flgure 5, the pornt labeled by pram represents 
-the defin~tlon Itto air (as a chlld) In or as if in a baby car- 
r1ageff ; slnce pram is the core unlt for no definition in the 
dictionary, all its definitions mav be excluded as non-primi- 
tive. In W3, this rule applies to approximately 13,800 verbs 
out of 20,000; the number of definitions in the verbs excluded 
is not known, 
Rule 2. If a verb main entry is used only as the core unit 
of definitions already placed in E, then all its definitions 
- 
may also be placed in E.   his rule applies to points of the 
basic mceel with pusitive outdegree. 
The uses of su* verbs as 
core units follow definitional paths that dead-end; hence, they 
cannot be primitive. Figure 6 shows a portion of the dictionary 
cover cake barkle 
rkgure 6. Basic model, verb subgraph 
examplie subject to aule 2. 
digrapn where the verb - cake defines only barkle, which in turn 
is not used to define! any verb. Thus, the definitions of - cake 
may be included in E after the definitions of barkle have been 
entbred, In W3, this rule applies to approximately 1400 of the 
6200 verbs that remained after application of Rule 
1. 
Rule 3, If the verbs-forrnang a strong component are not 
used as core units in any definitions except those in the 
strong componwt or in definitions of verbs already placed in E 
by Rules 1. 2, or 3, =then the definit,ions of all verbs in the 
strong component may be placed in E. (This rule applies to 
points of &he basic model which constitute a ptrong component, 
i. e. a maximal let of points such that for every two points, u 
and v, there are paths from u to v and from v to. u. 
This rule 
does not apply when €he strong component consists of all points 
not yet placed in E.) 4 strong component consiqtAng of the 
verbs aerate, aerifg, air, and ventillate is shown in Pimre 7. 
aerify - air 
aera*e 
f 
ventilate 
oxygenate 
Figure 7. Basic mod&, verb subgraph 
example subject to Rule 3. 
Except for oxygenate, the other verbs defining the set constl- 
tuting the strong component are not shown. Shce it is possible 
to start at any of the four and follow a path to any other of 
the four, there as no real generic hierarchy among *them. It is 
possible to emerge from the strorlg component and follow paths 
to pram, eventilate and perflate, to whlch, however, Rule 1 
applies. If we follow a definitional path that leads ihto thls 
strong component, we can never get out agaln or if .we tlo we 
will only dead-end. Hence, the de finitions of all the verbs in 
the strong component are not primitive and may be placed in E. 
In WJ, this rule applies to approximatelv 150 of the 4800 re- 
maining after the application of Rule 2. Actually, Rules 2 and 
3 may be applied in tandem; based on those placed in E. Thus, 
38 
after Rule 3 places the%def~nltlons of aerate, aer~fy, -9 alr and. 
ventilate in b, it so happens that ilule 2 then applles to the 
definitions ~f oxuenate. 
After Rules 1.2, and 3 are applied t~ the digraph or the 
baslc model, tne remaining polnts constitute a strong component 
of approximately 4500 polnts. Thls dlffers from those to which 
Rule 3 applies in that there'would be no ~olnts left if we 
placed all it8 polnts in E. phis flnal stro~g component 1s the 
basls set of the basic model, that is, any point of the basic 
model (1. e. any main entry in the dictionary) may be reached 
from any point in the final strong compo'nent (but not converse- 
ly) * 
kt th.is juncture, we can proceed no further w.i;h the basic 
model alone; it .is necessary to expand the points of the final 
strong component lnto two or more points each representing a 
subset of the definitions represented by the orlglnal point, as 
previously shown in Flgure 3, In part, this can be laccompllshed 
by ~derl,Llfylng ~ndividual definitions which are not used. 
Rule 4. If !any definition can be shown to be not used as 
the sense of any core unlt (or only those already in E), it may 
be placed in E. Th,is rule is essent:ia$ly a restatement of Rule 
1 for xad~vidual definitions and includes the following two 
subrules, among others nat presented. 
Rule 4a. If all the rema,in,ing uses of a verb are trans1 
tlver ( intransitive) then .its :intransitive ( trans.it.ive) defini- 
* 
tions are not ,used and may be placed in E. The exp'anslon of a 
poinl into transitive and intransitifire uses is a good examole 
of how the points of the basic model are transformed into 
pgints of the expanded model. 
Rule 4b. 12 a definition is rn ked by a status, label 
(e.g. archaic or obsolete),, a subject labs or a subject-guide 
phrase, it may be pldced in E. Lexicographers creating W3 were 
instructed not to use such marked definitionn in defining any 
other word. . 
Other ?rules have been developed in an at,kernot to identify 
$he specific sense of the core verb, or those senses of n verb 
which have not been used in deyining other verbs, but are not 
presented here. However, there are too many instances where the 
differentiae of a definition do not provide sufficient context 
to exclude all but one sense (for example, many senses of - move 
fit into a definition phrased "move quickly"). In order to con- 
tinue toward the primitxves, we must shift gears slightly and 
ask whether a definition can be characterized as llcomplexv, 
that is, derived from more primitive elements. For example, one 
befinition - of - make is "cause to be", which can be labeled as 
complex aecause it conbists of a causative, component and a 
state component, each of which is more primitive by it~elf than 
lcause to be", 
The importaqqe of the notion of a complex definition be- 
comes evident when we try to viaualiee how a primitive concept 
wd.11~ be identified. To understand this, -re must consid-er some 
further properties of the digraph. After the application of 
40 
64 
nuie 
and any Subsequent rule), the remaining graph is a fi- 
ndl sProng component. (~ecall that in a strong component, for 
each two points, u and v, there is a path from u to v and one 
from v to u. ) Assuming that each point aepresents a concept (as 
in the ultimate model), the fact that two concepts are in the 
same strong component means thdt they are e~uivalen4. In more 
traditional terms, what we have is a definitional vicious cir- 
cle, . that is, a definitronal chain which adds nothing to our 
Undeistanding of the meahings invol ved. 
Using the digraph of the final strong component, we can 
identify (and examine one by one) all putative definitional cy- 
cles or vicious clrcles; these will fall into three classes. 
The first class will konsist of improper cycles, whiqh can be 
removed by determining that one poifit is more complex (and 
hence not equivalent to the definition from which it is derived) 
Further rules for_ characterizing a definition as complex are 
given below. The second class of cycles will be real viclous 
circles, which fortunately can be removed, but only under cer- 
tain conditions. For example, one definition of jockey is "ma- 
neuver for advantage", while one definition of maneuver is 
"jockey for positionN; these two definitions constitute a vi- 
cious circle. In order to remove it, the~e must be some other 
definition of either verb whicn constitutes its meaning; in 
this case, it is found under maneuver, specifically, "shift 
tacticst1. Thus, in order to remove a vicious circle, we must 
find some way out. If we cannot, we have the third class of 
cycles; this class will comprise %he set of basic concepts. If 
there had been no way out for the example of jockey and maneu- 
ver we would have said that no meaning was conveyed by eitber 
-9 
Vera, but rather that the meaning was established by use. This 
third set of cycles is what is sought by the procedures de- 
scribed inathis paper. 
As mentioned above, the crux of the analysis after the ap- 
plication, ~f Rules 1 to 4 is the iaenfjfication of complex con& 
cepts.-Essentially this entails a showing that, for any defini- 
tlon yi of verb Y, with Y as the core verb of definition x 
of 
3 
verb X, the differentiae of x, make yi generic to x . For exam- 
3 J 
ple, all transitive definitions of - cut would be generic to a 
definition in which "cut1f is used with an object, even without 
narrowing down to one definition. The general rule may now be 
stated, 
Ru1.e 5. If any definition is identified as complex, it may 
be placed in E, The net effect of this rule is to brea~ one or 
1 
L 
more putative cycles hf equivalent definitions or concepts, en- 
abling them to be transformed into a strict hierarchical order 
which will eventually be subject to Rule 4. Thus, the complex 
defiriition and all definitions that can be shown to be derived 
therefrom dan be placed in E, be cause they cannot be part of a 
primitive cycle. 
Rule 5 is implemenBed only by very specific recognition 
rules, which are essentially part of the parser. The specific 
rules entail a showing that some component has teen added in 
42 
the differentiae of a definition that is not present in the 
II 
meanings of its core verb. For example, the limannern component 
is not htrinsic to the meaning of the verb moveo therefore, 
-9 
when a daiinition has the core verb flmovett with an adverb of 
manner, it can be marked as complex. In establishing a compo- 
nent as non-intrinsic, it is necessary to articulate rules for 
recognizing the presence of the "mannerft component (such as a 
phrase in.8 manner" or an "-ly1! word with a aefinition 
'hn a mannerl1) apd then to deterrnlne if that component is 
present in any definitions of a particular verb. If not, then 
the verb can be labeled as complex whenever it is used asthe 
core verb in a definition with differentiae that% fit the recog- 
nitinn rule. In addition to move I have determined that, for 
-9 
the manner component, the verbs act , perform, ater, speak, ex- 
II 
press, behave, and many others follow the rul e. Table 1, on the 
next page, identifies some specific components, a brief de- 
scxiption of how they are recognized, some of the verbs to 
which the particular rule applies, and an -example of a gefini- 
tion labeled as complex by the rule and hence placed In E, 
If a definition has a. ccre verb whose applicable sense is 
one which has been marked as complex, it too can oe so marked, 
since it is derived from a complex definition. For example, all 
definitions of the forq "make aajectiveqi, i.e. with an adjec- 
tive complement, are deri'ved from the definition of -9 make 
"cause to be or become" and hence can be marked as complex. Tn 
add-ition, if all defini ions of a verb have been marked as 
Recognition Rules for Sernant~c Components 
Name of Examples of 
Component Recognltlon Rule ApplFcable Verbs 1. Definitions 
Verb t cease, bean, commence vi -, 2, 
~nf tnht$ve strive, continue "begin to bi;" 
2. Causative ~ausat;ive verb cause, force, confront vt 2a, 
+ Inf in1 tive compel, induce compel (a 
peraon) to 
face, fake ac- 
count of, or 
enQuyett 
pake vt IOa, 
Vause to be 
1. Instrument Verb t ttwithlt apply, fasten, knife vt 2a, 
+ noun defined cut, beat l1 cut with a 
as instruwnt, 
device, etc. 
4.Means Verb + "by" t make, prepare, draw vt 4e4,, 
(Process) Gerund form, shape l1 shape (glass) 
-. 
by drawing mol- 
ten glass from 
the furnace 
over a senes 
of automatic 
rbllerstl 
5. State Entry Verb + ~hnton + br rngi put, 
noun defined throw. fall 
as "the state 
of ,,, 
Ir 
disorder vi, 
f1fa13: into 
6,l)ellvermee Verb + ItoflI or 
free, relheve, 
vf'roml~ + noun rld, empty 
.. ~ 
throat) of 
phlegn" 
compleq then all definitions in which it appears as a'core verb 
can be similarly marked and placed in E. 
Through the devel~pment and application of further papsing 
rules under Rule 5, I am hopeful that I will eventually arrive 
at the set of primitive verb concepts (i.e. cycles or vlcious 
circles with no way out). I have already reduced the number of 
verbs from 20,000 to less than 4,000. This number would be mucH 
lover, But TOY the fact that I am applyiqg the rules manually 
and I must ex8yiise %me-consuming,care to emure correatmess. 
After the primitive concepts have been identified, it will 
be necessary to gg back to all the definitions that were set 
aside in the process of finding the primitives, so that then 
semantic characteristics can be articulated. 5 fully expect 
that the parsing system which will have been deveoped will be 
able to accomplish much of this task I also expect that the 
parsing system will have equal applicability as a general par- 
ser capable of formally characterizing ordinary discourse in a 
canonical form. Of course, verification of this expectation 
will have tn await a full presentation of the parser. 
10. R8LATIONSHlP TO'EFFORTS TO REPRESENT KNOWLEDGE IN FRAMES 
The process whkch has been outlined ifi the preceding sec- 
tions is closely akin to current efrorts to represent knowledge 
in frames. (~f. Winston 1977 for an elementary presentation* of 
'this notion.) Briefly, a frame consists of a fixed set of argu- 
ments, some of which may be specif.ically related to others, and 
some of which may have specific values. 
frame 1s intended to 
69 
45 
rppresent a stereotyped situation, with the arguinems identify- 
ing the various attributes which the situation always possesses. 
In terms of case grammar, for e~ample, a movement frame will 
contain arguments or slots for an agent, an instrument, and a 
destination.- By tying frames togeSher in spepific relationships, 
we can build larger and larger frames to represent more and 
more knowledge, perhaps constructing a series of events, an in- 
ferencp structrye, or a de8c~4ption of a scarre. 
Before bnilding these large structures, it is necessary to 
represent very small pieces of knowledge. Heretbforc, this has 
been done by postulating the components of frames to represent 
such things as actions and state changes. But- this can be ac- 
complished an a more rigorous basis. Por example, if we first 
locate all definitions using "move" as its core verb and then 
identify all the case structures in which it 1s used, we wqll 
have a generalized frame which characterjzes most if not all of 
the possible uses of *lrnove1l. (This approach ds currently being 
followed by Slmmons 1977.) Each definition in which tlmovell is 
used could then be representea by the generalized frame with 
some of itb slots fllled. This process can be followed for any 
word for which we wish to develop a frame, 
If ,_ ln addition, we analyzed the definitions of -* move we 
will find that they, in turn, represent instantiations of still 
o3her frames, which will be even more generalised than those 
developed for the uses of ftmoveft, The difference between the 
frames representing the definitipns of - move and those represent- 
46 
ing the uses of "move" is that the latter are the same as the 
former wlth some slots filled. Within the bounds of the ambl~u- 
ity preselit in the dictionary, this stut-filling will identlfy 
which definition of - move are employed in which uses of umove". 
It seema C.0 me that this ir nothing ,more than the process which 
has already been described using a graph-theoretic naproach, 
except that the generalhxed frame for each verb will not be, 
carzied along tnrough each step. Moreover, si.nce the semantic 
parslng sy-stem which has been described wi13 be based largely 
on the relationships derived from €he definitions of preposi- 
tions,, , and these comprise most of the case relationships, the 
parsing system will effectively circumscribe the ~errnissible 
elements (i. e. slots) which can be, present, glven any particu- 
lar. context. Thus, although the phraseol~y ik different, the 
effect is the same, 
If there is ali essential equivalence between these two ap- 
proaches, then. since frames purport to represent knowledge, 
the process described; if successful, will result in an articu- 
lation of whatever knswledge is contained in a dictionary, What 
this implles is that the lexicon cofitains a great deal of know- 
ledge about the world and not just information which will er+ 
able us to understand such knowledge, 
Frames provide a 'great deal of inslght to the approach 
which has been described here, but the reverse also seems to 
hold true. If the semantic content of each defihition can be 
captured, then it map be possible to~articulate the frame for 
any utterance by combinihg the characteristics of the defini- 
tion$ of Yts constituent words within what\is permitted by the 
parsing system. 
I 1, FINAL REMARKS 
5 
In Section 1, I described some limitatzons of this paper 
and my research. This paper suffers from a lack of sufficient 
detail to enabl,e a reader oP researcher to replicate what I 
have done or to take the next steps of cbmputerizing the proce- 
dures whrch I have developed. I will provide further details bn 
the specific steps I have followed in reducing the set of verbs 
from 20,000 to 4,000 to anyone requesting. With respect to com- 
pqter specifications, I have prepared some, but stopped because 
I have no access to a computer, However, if any researcher 1s 
interested in pursuing this (or setting graduate students to 
work), I am prepared to develop the necessary specifications 
and to work hand-in-hand for the further advancement and re- 
finemekt of this methodology, 
I also ~ndicated in Section 1 that my research presently 
shows no final res,z4lts and that I do not even know how much 
further effort-will be necessary to explicate tfi% parsing sys- 
tem which has been described. Clearly, there are great dm- 
tances yet to be covered toward a goal of being capable of 
transformin& ordinary discourse into a canohical form. I believe 
that characterization of the contents of an ordinary dictionary 
1s an essential step in attaining this goal, and I am hopeful' 
that my approash c&n be used to develop such a characterization. 
7 2 
48 
If it seems worthwhile to pursue this approach, despite the 
limitations, I believe the best way to do so would be to estab- 
lish a single computer-based repository for a dictionary, pref- 
erably W3, with @h-line access to researchers across the coun- 
t-... LJ, and to build the parser and definitional. charac-terizations 
piece by piece. (I have noted how the parsing system which I 
have described can be built incrementally.) The magnitude of 
this effort Precludes much progress by individual researchers. 
Olney tried to do something similar with the collegiate dictio- 
nary baged on W3, but by distributing bulky computer tapes. He 
was unfortunately premature; it may be that now is th? time to 
try again, 
Alexander 0 Rblh D~rector 
Wash~nglon Oflice 
Pender M McCarter 
Editor 
d% Washington Report 
I 
*******i****************.*******m* 
Zmer can Federal on of Informat on Process~ng Sos et (s inc Wash ngton 01 ce 1815 North Lynn Street Sute 8$5 At1 nglon V rglW2209 703 243 3000 
Vol. V, No, 2 
February, 1979 
PRESIDENT TO SUPPORT LIMITED PRIVACY INgTIATIVE 
Consistent wPth the Lelectlve approacn of the U S to privacy ~egulatlon 
(versus the onmibus app~oach of the Europeans on the subject), the 
Carter Ablnlstxatlon is expected to support & hmited legislative 
program in the 96th Congress on privacy issues. 
The President's response 
to the recommendations of the Privacy Protection Study Commission and 
previous legaslative efforts, termed the priv y initiative, i$ energlng 
r 
from a year-long study by an ad hoe group wit in Mr. Carter's Domestic 
Pollcy Staff. The study died 
"Baby Blueff (compared with a largd 
, supporting b lue-colored doment called "Big Blueu) was delivered to 
the President last December. The group, known afthe White House Brlvacy 
Study Coordinating Cornmitree, 1s headed by Stuart E Eizenstat, Assistant 
to the President for Domestlc Affairs, and Juanita M Kreps, Secretary 
of Commerce. 
Atlmlnistration Proposals Jt 4s reported that Mr. Carter may mention 
the prlvacy initiative In Rls State of the Union Address in January 
The Adminxstrat ion' s proposds are expected to r;ent er oh lamit ing Federal 
access to data in the prtvate sector, z,e., in the area of medicine, 
credit and insurance. The Privacy Coordinatu~g Committee recommended 
that these limlts on access should apply equally, to state'and local 
governments The Committee endorsed Federal lqp~lat ion leav~ng st at es 
to adopt laws Ifthat meet certain mrnimum standartis. " 
The. privacy proposals would give individuals the rlght of "ownership" to 
personal data maintained in ap medical, credit and insurance sectors 
r 
,- 
IN THIS ISSUE 
PFESEGIDENT TO SUPPORT LIMI~~D PRIVAGT INITIATIVE 
1 
AFIPS IN WASHINGTON 
WITNESS STATEMENTS AVAILABLE 
THROUGH WASHINGTON OFF ICE DETAILED 
3 
SPECIAL REPORT 
EUROPEANS SEE 'WIDER CONCERN'IN 
RESTRICTIONS ON TRANSBORDER DATA ,FLOW 4 
NEWS BRTEFS . . . . . . . ..... . ..... .....7 
+ 1 - 
76 
Thus, individuals would be entitled to review information in order $0 
correct errors. (Aetna Life G Casualty Co. has initiated a similar 
policy,' at the urging of William 0. Bailw, Aetna Life president, and 
former Privacy Protection Study Commissian member.) It is possible that 
this right of Mournership" will be incorporated into legislation amending 
the Fair Beds* ~apor.t;{ng Act. The proposals would also forbid disclosure 
of information where there is an expectation of ~onfidentiality.~~ The 
Gonupittee agreed to exclude a recommendation that wnllld encompass computerized 
telephone records. The Administration ' s privacy age~da seems to coincide 
with that of Rep. ~icfiardso~ Preyer (D-N. C.) who predicts the Congress 
will consider measures concerning medical records, banking recbrds and 
third-party records. 
'Administrative Steps. Besides the legislative proposals on privacy, 
the President- is expected to take some l1adm$nistrat ive steps, tt using 
executive authoriza kion (see WashCngton Report, 12/ 78, p. 11). 
'International Information Issues.' The privacy initiative precedes 
exp-ted fi Pture Administration proposais on so-calded "mternational 
Information issues, I' such as overseas restrictions on transborder data 
flow, the transmission of data across international boundaries. Henry 
Geller, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications E Information, 
has noted it is time for the U.S. to l5bring' . . . [~ts own] house in 
ordert1 on privacy issues (see Washingtm Report, 12/78, p. 11). 
Role of the Computer. Rec~gnizing the role of the computer in facilitaring 
the collection and dissemination of information, Carter official% state 
that legal protection against the indiscriminate use of data has not 
developed as rapidly as the technology. In one draft of the report 
prepared for the President by the Privacy Coordinatilig Committee, the 
group noted that, "We are faced by a slow but steady erosion of privacy 
which ~f left unreversed, will take us (in another generation) -to a 
position wherce the extent of our human rlghts and vitality of our 
democracy will be j e~pardized . " 
Previous Privacy Legisl atlon. The Pres identlal Prrvacy init lati-ve 
follows passage of the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Right to FinrmciaZ * 
Privacy Act (FJashington Report, 12/78, p. 1) . The Privacq Act Limits 
Federal agencies acceks to personal informat ion held by other Fadera1 
agencies. The Right tt~ ~inaricia~' Privacy Act limits Federal access to 
personal lnformation in the fin&clal sector. Cited as ~majd?*achleve- 
ment by the Carterr Administration, the Financia2 Privacy Act has been 
criticjzed by certain individuals for increasing the potential number 
of bank examinations conducted by Federal investigators; for lacking 
sufficient legal grounds to challenge unreasonable access to data; and 
for exempting political action groqs. [An internal audit, made public 
recently by the U.S. Postal Service criticizes the Post Off ice for 
inadequate implementation of the %u&y Act of 1974.1 
Effect of Gongressional Elections on Privacy Issues. The surprise 
defeat of Rep. Edward W. Pattison ID-N.Y.) in the November Congressional 
elections removes a staunch defender of financial privacy legislation 
from the House ~dking Committee. Also, on the SsRate side, Sen. Thomas 
J. McIntyrets (D-N.H.) loss is expe~ted -to+change rne character of the 
FEBRUARY, 1979 2 AFIPS WASHINGTON REPORT 
Financial Institutians Subcommittee which the Senator chaired. koweyer, 77 
strong privacy advocates were elected to the House of Representatives in 
California: a Democrat, Vic Fazxo, sponsor of a Fair Information Practice 
Bill enacted in California in 1977; and a Republican, Jerry Lewis 
(no relation to the pnt-ertainerl, spoqsor of additional. state-wide 
AFIPS IN WASHINGTON 
WITNESS STATEMENTS AVAILABLE 'I%ROUGM/WASHINGTON OFFICE DETAI LED 
The AFIPS Washington Office has compiled numerous-witness statements 
made before the Executive pd Legislative Branches of vvernment on 
information policy issues as part of a Witqess Statement Exchange initiated 
last year (Washing,ton Report,lll/78, p. 6). For participants in the 
witness statement exchange (rules for participation 'dbscribed below), 
the $bllowing wltness statements may be obtained s 
H. R. 214, The Bit2 of Rights Procedms Act. Philip B. Heyman, appearing 
~uf~ 13, 1978, before the House Subcommittee on Courts; Richard J. Davis, 
Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Enforcement and Operation, 3epartrngnt 
of the Treasury, appeariGg July 20; - 1978; and Paul 'G. ~oe, ~ssistant 
Chief Pa jtal Inspector, -CriminqA Investigations, U.S. Postal Service, 
appearing July 20th. 
H.R. 13015, 171s Conununications Act of 1078. Tyrone Brown, commissioner, 
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), appearing July 18, 1978, before 
the House Subcommittee on ~ommunications; krgitaW E. hite, commissioner, 
FCC, appearirig July 18, 1978; James H. Quello, commissioner, FCC, appearing 
July 18th; Philip S. Nyborg , vice-p9esident &id general counsel Camputer 
6 Communications Industry Association (CCIA) , appearing August 3, 1978; 
Charles b. Ferris, chairman FCC, appearing ~u~ust 9, 1978; Joseph R. Fag-ty, 
commissioner, FCC, appearing August 9th; MaTgita E. White, conunissioner,' 
FE, appearing August 9th; L. C. Whitney, president, National Data 
Corp. , appearing August 10, 19J8; and Herbert N. . Jasper, executive vice 
president, Aa Hoc Committee for Competitive Telec~mmunications. appearing 
August lWth. 
S. 2096, The 'Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1977, and S. 2293, The 
EZsotronio Fwd8 Tmsfer Act of 1977. Robert Ellis Sgith, publisher, 
Privacy JournaZ, appearing May 19, 1978 ,Tefore the Senaxe Subcommittee 
on Financial Institutions. 
S. 3270, The Jus*ice. System Improvsment Act of 2978. Jeffrey A. Roth, 
senior economic analyst, Institute for Law & Social Research, appearing 
~u~ust-23, 1978, before the ~enate,~ubcommitt~e on-Criminal Laws 6 
Procedures; also, James E rfke Cameron, chairman, Conference of Chief 
Justices, appearing August 23, 1978; Patrick V. Murphy, president, 
Police Foundation, appearing August 23rd; and Glen D. King, executive 
director, Internatiohal Association of Chiefs of Police, appearing 
August 23rd. 
FEBRUARY, 1979 AF IPS* WASHINGTON REPORT 
' Confidentiality of Medical Records. ' 
Richard I. Beattie, deputy general 
counsel, Department of Health, Education 6 Welfare, 
appearing May 23, 
1978, bsfote tWe Hwse Qybcommittee on Government Information 6 IndiVidual 
Rights. 
EX arts.! Juanita M. Kreps, Secretary of Commerce, appearing September 28, 
efore the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science 4 Transportation. * 
'Future of !hall Business in America.' John H Shenefield, assistant 
attorney general, Ahtitrust Divtsion, Department of Justice, appearing 
July 20, 197,8, befoae the House Subcommittee on Antitrust: Consumers & 
Employment; and d. G. W. Bi idle, flesident, CCIA, appearing July 20, 1978. 
High Technol'ogy Businesses. Jean N. Tariot , chairman, Incotem COT. , 
appearing July 20, 1978, befqre the Joint Senate Committee on Small 
~usiness and House ~ubcommit tee on Antitrust, Consumers 6 Employment ; 
and Lester A. Fettigj administrat&, Federal ~rocuremek Policy, Office 
of Management 6 Budget, appearing August 10, 1978. 
Rules for Participation. To participate in the exchange of statements 
made before the Executive and Legislative Branches of Government on 
informagion issues, one recent witness statement concerning 
informasion policy should be ssnt to: Pender M. McCartex,' Research 
Associate, MIPS Washinaton Office, 1815 North Lyqn Stbet, Suite 805, 
Arlington, Virginia 22209. Thus enrolled in the program, Specific 
witness statement reqiiests gan be made (based on the above list), by mail only, 
enclosing a ,stamped, self-addressed envelope. For each requested kitness 
stat-nt, one statement shwld be included, in add'ition to the 'first 
establ5shing participation in the proera. It is not necessary to be a 
witness in a hearing; having access to such statements is sufficient. 
Updated listings of available witness statements will be issued periodically. 
SPECIAL REPORT 
EUROPEANS SEE WIDER CONCERN' IN RESTRICTIONS ON TRANS~RDER DATA FLOW: 
:PROTEC'PPEOPLE AGAINST COMPUTERS 4 COMPUTERS AGAINST PEOPLE1 
* 
Citing a long privacy tradition, concern was expressadsfor the protection 
of individuals, not nations, "whoever and wherever they are,'! in an 
Iqtematid Conference on Data Rsguktion: 
European d Third WorZd 
ReaZCties, convened in New York City, November 28-30. 
'More Than Privacy Qterests . . . Inv~lved. Frits Hondius, chief, 
Judicial Affairs Directorate, -Council ' of Europe (CE) , told thr Online 
- -- 
Conferences Ltd .-sponsored conference that m&e than privacy interests 
are involved in kuropean restrictions on the transmissio~ of data across 
~nternational boundaries. (The CE is preparing a 1980 treaty concernitlg 
transborder data flow. ) 
~ocord:din~ to M. Hondius, such bod-ies as the 
20-member CE (in which the united States is oay a non-voting member) 
are seeking to protect lpeoplets rights and interests." He added that 
the European goal is to "protect people against computers and computers 
FEBRUARY, 1979 
AFI PS WASHINGTON REPORT 
WTI' NILSQN, DIRECTOR, BUSINESS PLWNING, INTELSAT (LEFT), AND 
BRIAN JUDD, SPECIAL ASSISTANT FOR CCIS, NATO 
(AFIPS/ P. M. McCartcr) 
against people.'' Hondius also noted the lack of U. S. Government attendance 
at a recent CE session as w&t as at the On1 ine Conference. 
Jan Freese, direcpr-general, Data Inspection Board, Sweden, agreed that 
his country's Data Protection Ac' was designed to insure "the use of 
computer technology on human terms. " Mr. Freese added that it was his 
philosophy to "try to solve proble~as before they occur. " 
General Principles of Data Protect ior, Cited. Hondius out lined some 
general principles of data protection laws already in effect in some 
seven countries. (~~~roxirnatel~ seven more nations are expected to 
follow these countries with their own privacy legislation. ) 
The three principles are: (1) Publicity: "People should know what is 
going on in general"; -(2) Propriety: ''Data systems should be proper"; 
and (3) qontrol : "Recordkeeping should observe norms. " 
. 
U.S. Privacy Policy Criticized. While stating that U. S. laws such as 
the Privacy Act of 1974 did represent "a legislative step forward," 
Professor David F . Linowes, former chairman, Privacy protect ion Study 
Commission, said that the Pritracy Act provides "no benefits £0- the 
general publict'; coqtains too many exceptions and tuoOfew penalties; and 
disregards accountability. 
Computer users from large mu1 tinat ional corporations at tending the 
conference criticized the U.S. for a lack of leadership in formulating a 
position on issues involved in transborder data flow. 
According to ane 
FEBRUARY, 19 79 5 AFI PS WASHINGTON REPORT 
PROF. LINOWES, POLITICAL ECONOMY 6 PUBLIC POLICY, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
(AFIPS/ P. Y. McCarter) 
account of "an informal, not-for attribution meeting," held after one of 
the conference sessions, the users formed an ad hoe committec to lobby 
on transborder data flow issues. 
U.S. Industry Criticized. Administration officials appearing at the 
conference reiterated their criticism of industry for not becoming involved 
in the issues, and implored industry to provide specific instances of 
economic harm caused by restrictions on transborder data flow. Attending 
the conference and named as primary contacts for industry were: William 
Fishman, deputy associate adminifirator for Policy Analysis and Development, 
National Telecommunications C Infor~ltion Administration (NTIA), U.S. 
Department of Commerce; and Morris - H, Crawf ord, Bureau of Oceans G 
1nter;ational Environmental ti Scientific Affairs, U. S. Department of 
State. 
OhCD Drafting Group Meeting Ileld. The Drafting Grow of the Organization 
of Economic Cooperation G Development (OECD) met December 6-8 in Paris 
to consider a new draft of ~ransborder Data Flow Guidelines prepared by 
Peter Seipel, consultant to the OECD Secretariat ( WashCngton Report, 
January, 1979, p. 1) . Attending the meeting as U. S. representatives 
were : L~cy ~wnmer, Esq., ~e~artment of state; Will iam Fishman, NTIA; 
and James Howard, NTIA. 
Inclusion of Manual Files, 'Legal Persons' Debated. At the OECD meeting, 
there was substantial disagreement on including manual files as well as 
computer files in the draft guidelines. In addition, the delegations were 
divided on extending privacy protection to lllegal persons" (Le., business 
FEBRUARY, 1979 6 AF I PS WASHINGTON REPORT 
corporat iong and various other organizations) as well as individuals. 
81 
The Europeans favor a more comprehensive approach to privacy legislation 
and generally view as ineffectual the selective approach taken by the U.S. 
Consensus Said to be Supporting U.S. Position. Despite these recent 
developments, a consensus is said to be growing in both the OECD and the 
Council of Europe supporting the U.S. position. For example, the latest 
Seipel draft has been interpreted by an Administrati on source as being 
"very favorable" to the U. S. position. 
NEWS BRIEFS 
A recommendation for a 3ecial Assistant to the President for Information 
Technology Policy, Plans ,ti Programs, contained in a tentative 
Discussion Draft of the final Surunury Report on Infomration TechnoZogy 
& Godernmental Reorganization of the President's Federal Data 
Processing Rewganization Project (FDPRP) (Washington Repdrt, 10/78, 
g. 51, has been" dropped in a final draft; according to the most recent 
version of the consensus report [now circulating amopg Cabinet and 
Office of Management 6 Budget (OMB) officials], the FDPRP majority 
- 
view "holds that the . . . [FDPRPIreqommendation - can and - must be 
implemented through a strong and persevering Presidential injtlatlve 
through the OMB. . . .I1; the OMB is expected to pqesent the consensus 
report to the' President after final revisions. 
A formal study "to determine the Administration's policy . . , [on] the 
future role of the U.S. Postal Service in providing services by 
electronic ~omrnunications~' is bei~g initiated by the White House 
under Stuart Eizenstat. the Assistant to the President for Domestic 
Policy; an Interagency Coordinating Committee, chaired by Mr. Ei zenstat , 
met December 13th to outline electronic communicationst issues; the 
National Telecommunications E Information Administration, designated 
as "lead staff agency" for the study, is soliciting comments from 
"intergsted individuals or organizations" to be considered in thp 
development of the Adminlstrationl s position; Congress is expected to 
address the issue this Spring. 
In December, the Postal Service Buard of Governors authorized temporary 
implementation of E-COM service, an electronic message service (EMS) 
for large-volume users (see Washington Report, 11/78, -p. 3); in November, 
Postmaster General William F. Bolger approved a four hllion dollar 
electronic mail experiment beginning this year; 
also in November, 
Xerox COT. filed a request with the Federal Conununications Commission 
to reallocate a portion of tbe radio spectrum for EMS. 
[Bletter information- is needed . . . to make assessment and evaluation of 
the policy alternatives regarding CCH [the computerized criminal 
history file]," according' to an Office of Techno~ogy Assessment (OTA) 
study released in January, the first phase of a new OTA assessment 
of the Social Implications of National Information systems ; entit led 
A Pre timinary AssessmentL of the NationaZ Crime Information Center and 
the Computerized CriminaZ History System (#- -endose $2.75) , the study 
notes, "Although CM has been the subject of numerous studies, conferences 
FEBRUARY, 1979 7 AF I PS WASHINGTON REPORT 
and hearings, there is only limited information regarding the ways 
is which law enf~rcment and the criminal justice decisionmakers, 
as well as other government and private individuals and the press 
make use of criminal history information, its benefits, the value 
of nationwide access to information, and the value of rapid 
access. 
The General Accounting Office (GAO) is preparing to release a new study 
entitled Security of Automated Information Systems of Federa2 Agencies; 
according to ia tentative outline of the GAO report, obtained by the 
AFIPS Washington Off ice, I1organizatiwnal structures1\ are I1inadequatelt 
and lfcomprehensive procedures" are nonexistent in current Federal 
security precautions. 
A research and development project to evaluate the use of data encryption 
devices in protecting the Federal Reserve System1 s, (FRS) Fedwire 
operations is expected to be completed this June; Fedwire, a form 
of electronic funds transfer, links FRS to member ganks nationwide. 
In December, the Department of Justice said it is considering computer 
crimc involved in counterfeit or stolen securities as well as 
bribery and kickbacks. 
The Federal Cofimunications Commission - (FCC) 1s expected to add the Corrputer 
Inquimj II to its weekly agenda again, after two previous postponements; 
the FCC may determine whether AI'ET, a regulated communications common 
carrier, can provide unregulated data processing sefvices. 
The Supreme Court is eonsidering whether, under the Freedom of" Infomation 
Act, individuals "can obtain confidential business data; in November, 
the High Court let stand a U.S. Court of Appeals decision (Washington 
Report, 6/78, p. 4) allowing MCI Communications Corp. to use AT6T1 s 
local phone conn'ection to impleme,nt Execunet , hlCI1 s long distance 
telephone service providing voice and data communications. 
In December, the Office of Management Fr Budget (OMBI issued for comment 
a directive which would require Federal agency data processing users 
to account for the future cost of their DP systems; also in December, 
It 
OMB issued an annotateh bibliography (#) of current laws, panlcies, 
regulations, and "guidance d,,cumentslV which are relevant to the 
acquisition, mqnagement , ana use of Federal data processing and related 
telecommunications resources; finally, in December, OMB issued a list 
(#) of Federal policies, regulations, standards, guidelines, and other 
reference documents pertaining to computer security. 
The I1baslc philosophy" of the ~omrnunicat ions Act ~ewrite  ill remaln the 
same." according te former R~D. Louis Frev (R-Fla.). until this vear 
<. - - 
ranking member of the House ~bmunications .Subcommittee; predictions have 
also been made that "significant changes: wili be incorporated i-n the 
legislation this year, previously known as the Communications Act of 
1978 (Washington Report, 10J78, p. 3). 
A new s~ibcommittee on llProfessionalism 6 Malpractice of Computer ,Specialists1I 
has been formed by the Committee on -Law Relating 'to Cbmputers of the 
American Bar Association's Science 6 Technology Section; heading the 
subcommittee is *J.T. Westermeier, Jr., member of a Washington, Q .C. 
law f inn. 
FEBRUARY, 1979 8 ~FIPS ViASIIINGTON RrPORT 
Ed. : Information for the February, 1979, AFIPS Washington Report js current 
as of January 5, 1979, press time. Production assistance for the Vashington 
Report is provided by Linda Martin. AFIPS societies have permission to use 
material in the newsletter for their own publications. Documents indicated 
by the symbol are available on request to the Washington Office. Re- 
quests should specify the da<e(s) of the Report in which the document(s) 
appeared. Where price is noted, make checks paybble to "AFIPS .I' 
A 
Alexander D Roth D~reclor 
Wash~nglon Ofl~ce 
Pender M McCarter 
Ed~tor 
d! Washington Report 
rnerlcan Federalon of Inlormat~on Process~ng Soc~el~es Inc 
Wash~nglon Ofllce 1815 North Lynn Street Sude Bna~rl~ngton Vlrglnla 22209 703 243 3000 
Vol. V, No. 3 
March, 1979 
WASHINGTON DEVELOPMENTS 
PRESIDENT, CONGRESS ADDPESS INFORMATION POLICY ISSUES 
Amidst predict ions that- the 96th Congress is concentrating on oversight 
of existing Government programs, there is no dearth of information 
policy-related legislation on the Congressional Calendar, sustaining the 
momentum of the 95th Congress which enacted 74 new laws affecting U. S. 
informat ion pol icy. [~ditor? s Note : 
A House of Represent at ives 
committee Print describing these laws is available on request to the 
MIPS Washington Off ice. ] 
Privacy Legislation. 
Much of the information policy-related legislation 
ceoters on privacy issues. President Carter referred to planned privacy 
legislation affecting Government access to records in the medical and 
financial sectors (see Washington Report, 12/78, p. 1) in his Supplemental 
State of the Union Address delivered to the Congress on January 25th. 
Under the heading of "Civil Liberties : Privacy, the President said : 
Government and private- institutions collect increasingly large 
amounts of personal data and use them to make many crucial 
decisions about indfviduals. Much of this 'information is needed 
to enforce laws, deliver benefits, provide credit, and conduct 
similar, important services. ~bwever, these interests must be 
balanced against the individuals right to privacy and against 
the harm that unfair uses of infarmation can cause. Individuals 
shoul'd be able to know what information organizations collect 
and maintain about them; they should be able to correct inaccbrate 
records; and there should be limits on the disclosure of 
particularly sensitive personal information. 
IN THIS ISSUE 
PRESIDENT, CONGRESS ADDRESS INFORMATION POLICY ISSUES . . . . . . . . 1 
AFIPS IN WASHINGTON 
t 
CIVIL SERVICE SHOULD REVISE 
PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER-RELATED OCCUPATIONS . . . . . . 5 
CONSUMER LIABILITY COULD BE LIMITED TO $500 IN EFT. . . . . . . . 6 
NEWS BRIEFS . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 81 
I 
85? 
Mr. Carter concluded defining planned administrative measures implementing 
privacy protections (see Washinqton Report, ,2/79, p. 2) , as fol lows : 
My Administration is develaping a comprehensive privacy policy to 
address these concerns. Last year, legislation was enacted which 
established restrictions on . . . Government access to financial 
records. Early in 1979; I will propose privacy legislation to 
cover medical, financial, and other sensitive personal records. I 
will also take administrative actions to strengthen privacy controls 
for Federal agencies' records. 
NTIA Proposals. The National Telecommunications E Informat ion Administration 
(NTIA) is said to be preparing legislation for introduction this month 
(in March) , implementing what is being' called the President s Privacy 
Initiative. A principle underlying the legislation, according to an 
NTIA staff member, is that information collected for research ancl statistical 
purposes "should not be used [by Government] to make decisions about 
people. 
HEW Bill. The Department of ilealth, Education d Welfare (HEW) is also 
reported to be drafting legislation on Government access to medical 
records. Rep: Richardson Preyer (D-N. C .) , chairman of the House Subcommit tee 
on ~overnment Information E ~ndividual Rights, has previohsly expressed 
interest in considering privacy measures concerning- medical recoids (see 
Washington Report, 2/79, p. 2). 
Goldwater Legislation. On January 18th Rep. Barry M. Goldwater, Jr. 
(R-Calif . ) reintroduced privacy legislation imp1 ement ing recommendat ions 
of the Privacy Protection Study Commission (Washingto~z Report, 8/ 77, 
p. l), including a bill to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act. Mr. 
Goldwater's legislation is listed as follows: 
H.R. 344. A blll to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act dealing 
- 
with depository institutions and privacy, and for other purposep; 
to the Committee on Banking, Finance E Urban Affairs. 
H. R, 345. A bill to amend the Fair Credit Reporting Act dealing 
with consumer &edit and privacy; to the Committee on Banking, 
Finance 6 Urban Affairs. 
H.R. 346. A bill to amend the Fair Cr.ed<t Reporting Act dealing 
with hGrance institutions and privacy; to the Committee on Banking, 
Finance ti Urban Affairs. 
H. R. 347. A bill to amend the FdZy Educati~naZ Rights and Privacy 
Act to provide for the protection of the privacy of personal information, 
and for other purposes; to the Committee on Education E Labor. 
H.R, 349. A bill to amend the Privacy Act- of 1974; to the Committee 
on Government Operations. 
H.R. 350, A bill to establish a Federal Information Practices 
Board to review and report on fair information and privacy practices 
of Governmental and nnngovernment a1 entities ; to the Commit tee on 
Government Operat ions. 
MARCH, 1979 2 AF I PSe WSH INGTON REPORT 
H. R. 354. 
4 bill to amend the Intern2 Revenue Code of I058 dealing 
with privacy; to-the Committee on Ways t; Means. 
H.R. 358. 
A bill to restrkt the use of SociaZ Secukty Act account 
numbers as Governmental or universal personal identifiers; to the 
Comrnittee'on Ways 6 Means. 
Ha R. 359. Arbill to provide for the privacy of certain public 
assistance and social service records used or maintained ,by state 
and private agencies under programs receiving Federal financial 
assistance; jointly, to the Committees on Agriculture, Inters-te G 
Foreign Commerce, and Ways 8 Means. 
P 
H. R. 360. A bill to amend Title XI of .the Sock2 SeewYity Act to 
provide for the confidentiality of personal medical information 
createa or maintained -by medtcal care institutions providing service: 
under the Medicare or Medicaid firo'grams, and for bther purposes; 
jointly, to the Committees on Interstate E Foreign Commerce, and 
Ways G Means. 
H.R. 362. A bill to amend the Social Secuf.ity Act to provide for 
the protection of the privacy of personal medical information 
maintained by certain medical care iastitutions; jointly, to the 
Committees on Ways 6 Means, and Interstate 8 Foreigr Commerce. 
The Californi'a Congressnpn has been quoted as saying that Congress must 
legislate in the privacy area whenevef private enterprise fails to act. 
Golduater has served as a member, of - the Privacy Protect ion Study Commissioh 
Chances fox Passage of Privacy Legislation. Chances for,passage of 
privacy legislation are unpredictable given the customary, formidable 
Congressional procedures as well as p~eoccupation with fareign relations 
and the domestic economy. Among the scores of privacy-related bills 
introduced in the 95th Congress, only the R.ight to Financia2 Prhacy Act 
(see washington Report, 12/78, p. 1) passed in' the early morning hours 
of the last day&of Congress. A bemused Cartter offi~ial recently goted 
that a bill affecting Government access tq medical records may originate 
in as many as four different Congressional subcommittees. 
Similarly, 
one Cmgressional staffer stated that information policy is 'lmade in / 
disparate environments. Harry M. (Chip) Shooshan $11, chief counsel, 
House, Communications Subcomibree, tbld e January meeting of the American 
Library AsSociation that this disparity results in vvcogptrary policies. l1 
[At lemt some Cbhgressmen are reconsidering support for one section of 
the Right to FinrmoiaZ PrYivaqj Act following a Citibank survey which 
estimates that compliance withP the bils's notice requireqents by financial 
insdltutions cou,ld cost as mcn as one billion dollars, reoalling pimilay 
high (and, according to some privacy advocates, ultimately incorrect) 
estimates of costs to implement the Privacy Act of 1974. 
Sen. William 
Proxmire (D-Wisc. ) , for example, has introduced S. 
37 repead ing Section 
1104[dI of the Act which statos that, "All fi A ancial instautions shall 
prolnptly notifx all of, their customers of tleir rights under this ~tle." 
9. 
A similar bill,,II.R. 1777, has been introduced in the House, in~erting 
I1activef1 after "notify all of theirml' s.37 passed the Senate last month.] 
MARCH, 1979 &IPS WASHINGTON REPURT 
Additional Informaticn. Policy-Related Legislation. OtheY legislation 86 
introduced this year in the informrition policy area includes, at press 
t-ime i 
Communications Actt Rewrite* A new bill ils scheduled to be introduced 
the fivst of this month (in March) with the "basic philosophyw 
intkt. [Editor's Note: At least one bill is being cons'idered, 
H.R. 2580, that would "reaffirm the authority of the states to 
regulate terminal and station equipment used for telephone exchange. 
service ili certain instancps . . . , recalling the Conswner Comnun3cations 
Refom Act, also known in the 95th Congress as the "Bell Bill J1l 
Federal Computer Systems Prdtection Act .' Reintroduced January 25th 
by Sen. Abraham A. Ribicoff (D-Conn. ) , S. 840 (#) provides for a 
stri-cter financial penalty for compuber crime than the previous" 
vprsjcm, stipulating that a fine could amount to as much as two and 
one-mew .bimes that of the theft. Ih short, the bill would make it 
a Federal crime to access a computer for fraudulent purposes such 
as theft, sabotage or embezzlement. 
EFT Legislation. Introdbced January 23rd as S, 108 (#) and H. R. 2289 
(#) , the Truth ln Und5ng Simplification and Reform Act provjdes 
that all of the provisions of the EFT Act (see ~asJ%ngton &po"rt, 
12/78, p. 1) would become effective thj s June instead of May, 1980, 
as provided in the EFT Act. support;rs in the House and Senate are 
pred&cting early passage with the President's approval expected in 
"late Spring. " In addit ion, n. R. 852 would implemwt additional 
EFT ~ivacy legislation. 
Electronic Mail. In his Supplementary State of the Union Message, 
Presidenx Carter alfluded to Itproposals on the role of the Postal 
- - 
Service in providing electronic &.I. services. I' 
The House Commit tee 
on Post Off ice 6 Civil Setvice is planning hearings on electronic 
mil, though not in connection with any legislat-ion, according to 
Michael F. Cavanagh., staff assistant, House Subcommittee on Postal 
Personnel Modernization. 
Copyright Protection H.R. 1007 would amend the Copyriqht Act of 
1976 to provide copyright protection for imprinted deslgn patterns 
on semiconductor chips. 
Unsolicited Comneweial Telephone Calls. H. R. 377 woula amend the 
Commmicat$ons Act of 1934 to 'prohibit making unsolicited commercial 
telephone calls to persons who have indicated they do not'wish to 
receive such ca 11 s . " 
NSF Science Education Functions. S. 210, a bill to establish a 
separate Department of Education, would transfer to the new secretary 
of l;h proposed department programs relating to science education. 
of the NSF or the d%ector of the NSF." The legrslation would 
exempt such/functions and programs as those dating to "ethical, 
value, and sciehce policy issuesw or wcommunicating science ihformation 
to n~nscientists. ff 
MARCH, 1979 RFIPS WASHINGTON REPORT 
Oversight Hearings. 
Consistent with the observation that the 96th 
87 
Congress is concentrating on oversight of existing Government 
programs, budget hearings on the NTIA, the Office of Science E 
Technology Policy, the National Bureau of Standards, and the Off lce 
of Technology Assessment have been scheduled through this month. 
tContentiousl Session. Overall, a 'lcontentiousll session is predicted 
for the 96th Congress. Majority leader James C. Wright (D-Tex.) 
has been quoted as saying,- the kresldent T1still hasn't learned to 
consui t [with] Congressional 1 eaders . " 
Primary emphasis is expected 
to be on the budget and related legislation. 
[Editor's Note: DP 
aspects of the Fiscal Year 1980 budget will be anavzed m next 
month ' s AFlPS Wash.ington Report. ] 
AFIPS IN WASHINGTON 
Standards Do Not Cover Recent Developments 
In Information ~rocessing, AFIPS Panel Says 
CIVIL SERVICE- SHOULD REVISE 
PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER- RELATED OCCUPAT IONS 
Pro osed Civil Service standards (#) affecting Government recruitment of 
Y 
emp oyees In computer-xelated occupations, f ~rst announced In 1978. are 
already several years out of date and should be rev~sed, according to 
comments (#) released last month by an AFlPS panel. 
h 
AFIPS PANEL MEMBERS JOHN HAMBLEN (L) , EDMUND SAWYER (R) 
MARCH, 1979 
AF IPS WASHINGTON REPORT 
~bcent Dtyrelopnents in Information Processing. According t b the AFIPS 88 
pant$, the pro'posed standards 40 not cover such recent developments in 
the information processing field as the creation of distributive networks, 
advances in felecomunzcations the use of 'igtelligent terminals the 
widespread application of minicomputers and microcomputers, and the 
existence 0% on- line numerio and bibliograahic data bases. 
Panel Recommendations. TIPe AFIPS panel recommended that the OPM (1) 
consult with outside sources to upflafe computer occupatidn standards; 
(2) revise classif icatioa ~tandards $05 computer-related occupations at 
least every five years until at least 1999; and (3) insure that the 
proposed standards conform with [existingT Civil Service law and regulations. 
The group notes the pervasiveness of cornput& technology in Government, 
the interaction of citizens with computers empioyed by the U. S. in various 
programs, and tAe need for highly skilled and motivated personnel to 
e~ploit the technology. 
Panel Organization. The AFIPS Civil Service Standards Review Panel was 
formed 1% response to a special invitation by the U.S. Civil Service 
Commission, now the office of Personnel Management (OPM) , to comment on 
tentaf ive standards for ,the Computer Spcialist Series (GS-334) and. the 
Computer Clerk and Assistant serfeg (GS-335). me Federal government 
empleys' sthdards to 'clasMfy employees in payJlevels according to 
difficulty, remonsibility, and qualif icatiens required for the wo~k . 
The panel reflects a variety of backgrounds including curricu,lar work In 
computer science, analysis of computer occupations for personpel purposes, 
and computer usage. Comments reflect the views of the panel members, 
not necessar,ily those of AFIPS, the Federation's constituent societies, 
or the emphyers of the individuals involved. 
Panel Members. Members of the panel were : Dr. Frances Berger, Psychometrics 
Los Angeles; Dr.' Karen Duncan, Mitre Corp. , McLean, Va. ; Dr. John 1-Iamblen, 
University of Missouri-Iioqla; Charles D. LaBelle, Manufacturers Hanover 
Trust CB., New York; Will*iam P. LaPlant, J. US. Air Force, ~rlington, 
Va. ; Alexander D. Roth, Esq., AFIPS, Arlington, Va. ; Dr. Terry Sttaeter. 
NASA, Hampton, Vg.; Edmund Sawyer, U.S. Genepal Accounting Office, 
Washington, D. C. ; and Sidney Welnstein, Association for Computing Mach~nery , 
New York . 
New Draft. OPM 1s expected to issue another draft of its proposed standards 
incorporating comments from groups such as AFI PS. 
AFIPS Subcommittee Presents Comments to Fed on ' EFT Acti 
CONSUMER LIABILITY COULD BEp LIMITED TO $500- 1-N ALL EFT TRANSACTIONS 
Proposed regulations (#I of the Board of Governors of the Federal -Reserve 
System (FRS) may misconstrue 'the EZe *tronir Funde Transfer (EFT) Act [#) 
I to povide unlimited cop6umer liabi ity in cases of unauthor~zed EFT 
transfer, according to comments (#) reIeased last month by an AFIPS EFT 
Subcommittee. Passed by Congress last year, two sect ions of the EFT Act 
pertaining to liability became effective February 8th The Subcommittee 
~ommmats reflect the views of the panel mpmbe-rs and not necessarily 
those of AFIPS, the liederation's constituent societies, the AFIPS Washington 
Off ice, or the employers of the participants. 
AFIPS WASHINGTON REPORT 
Unlimited Liability Que~t~ioned. According to two AFIPS Subcommittee members, 
a'"thorough readingf1 of the law "gives the- impression that consumer liability 
in 9 case is limited to $500.00.1f The ~oard interpretation* contained in 
regulations published last December in the Federa2 Register, states, "If the 
consumer fails to report within 60 days of: Transmittal of the periodic statement 
any unauthorized electronic fund transfer which appears on th~ statement, the 
consumer may be liable fop the amount of any unauthorized transfer whlch, the 
financial institution estabAishes would not have occurred but for the 
failure 
of the cmsumer to notify the financial institution." 
Subconunittee Recommendat ions. 
Citing "adverse economic consequences of 
unauthorized use," a Subcommittee majority recommended that a demand 
deposit account snould be established for the lfexpress ,purposeu of EFT. 
The-majority also held that the provisions of the regulations interpreting 
the consumer's liability section of the EFT Act should require actual. 
notice to the consumer before any debiting in excess of $500.00 According 
to the AFIPS Subcommittee majority, llEvolving constitutional doctrines 
affecting prehearing remedies for creditors suggest that in . . . [extreme 
cases] there may be a constitutional requirement of prehearing notice 
and an opportunity for a hearing to contest the proposed debiting before 
such a taking1 may be effected. lf 'Finally, the Subcommittee recommended 
that the issuance of llaccess devicesf1 which serve as combined debit or 
credit cards shoug be prohibited, recognizing the increased risk of 
technical failure in the transaction terminal, 
Subcommittee Members. The Ad Hoc Subcommittee consists of four members 
chosen by the chairman of the AFIPS Special Committee on EFTS. William 
 enw wick ,- Esq., of Davis, Staf ford, ~Alrnalr 6  enw wick ,> palo ~lio, Calif. 
Subcommittee chairman is Malcolm M. Jones, First National Bank of Denver. 
~embers'are: Dr. John L. King, University of California. Irvjne; John 
C. Lautsch, Esq., Davis, Stafford, Kellman 4 Fenwick, Pal? Alto, Calif. ; 
and Pender M. McCarter. AFIPS, Arlington, Va. 
MARCH, 1979 
AFIPS SUBCOMElITTEE +EMBER JOHN L. KING 
7 
AF IPS WASH I NGTON REPORT 
NEWS BRIEFS 
Obligations for general-purpose data processing activities of .€$ecutive 
Branch agencies are expected to increask $651.4 million (up 15.8 
per cent) from Fiscal Year (FY) ,1978 to FY 1979 and $492.4 million 
(up 10.3 per cent) from FY 1979 to FY 1980, according to the Office 
of Management &,, Budget (OMB) ; using the OMB estimate, in the two-year 
period from FY' 1979 to FY 1980, the largest tlabkolute growfi" in 
data processing and telecommunications resources is expected in the 
Department of Defense (up 34.4 per cent), Pollowed by the Department 
of yealth, Education 6 Welfare, and the Department of Energy. 
Following the White House"s lead 
(see Washington Beport, 2/78, p. 7), 
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has initiated an inquiry 
into the legal and policy issues raised by a consideration of the 
U. S. Postal Servicet s -- Electronic --- Computer -- originated Mail (ECOM) ; 
initial comments are due February 25th, oppositions by March llth, 
and replies by March 18th; also, in January, the Commission, as part 
of 'i~ Zero-Based Regulatory Studies, has agreed to fund a report 
on "Privacy and Communications Security : the FCC' s Role. " 
The Departments of Justice and-Treasury are proposing regulations which 
would aultborize the departments to require financial records from a 
financiil institution pursuant to me formal writtep request procedure 
established by the Right to FinanciaZ P%vacy Act of 1978 (see Washington 
Report, 12/78, p. 1) ; deadline for comments to Justice is March 2nd; 
Treasury, March 5th; the Federal Reserve System also sought similar 
comment by Wpla<y 16 th . 
In January, the Federal Telecommunicati.ons Standards Committee, with 
representatives from numerous Government ad zncies, approved the 
Advanced Data, Communications Control Proceaures (ADCCP) protocol ; 
also, the National Bureau of Standards is reported to be planpkirg 
to recommend interface stagdards for small computers and peripheral 
equipment; finally, the Federal Trade Conimission is also seeking 
comment on a proposed trade regulation rule wbia reportedly would 
affect the development and implementatian of standards or, cbrtificatim 
procedures adopted by groups such as the American National Standards 
Instdtute. 
In January, the Federal Trade Commission adopted rules which would give a 
pro rata refund to students who drop out of vocational schools offering 
data processing-related courses; th; rules become effective next 
January, 1980, 
Senate eonfirnat.i6n hearings an Anne Jones, named by hesidkqt Carter to 
succeed Margita White as member of the Federal Communi'cations Commission, 
are scheduled February 23rd; Ms. White is now expected to resign her 
post February 28th unless Ms. Jmes is confirmed beforehand. 
MARCH, 1979 
r 
AF IPS WASHINGTON REPORT 
J 
Ed. : information for the March, 1979, AFLPS Wash5ngton Repgrt is current 
as of F&uary 16, 1979, press time. Production assistance, for tpe Washington 
Repopt is providdd by Linda Martin. @IPS societies h>ve permission to use 
material in the newsletter for the2 r ~wn publicafions. Docpments. indicated 
by the symbol "(#)tf are available on request to the Wgshiigton Office. Re- 
quests should spkcify the date(s) of the Repont in which, the do&ment(s) 
~ppgared. Where price is noted, make'ebdcs payable to ."AFIPS. " 
v - 
Alexander D Roth D~rector 
Wash~ngton OIf~ce 
d@ Washington Report 
*&**********;************************** 
Amer~can Federat~on of lnlormat~on Process~ng Soclet~es Inc Washlnglon bll~ce 
1815 North LynnStreet Suite 805 A~bngton V~rgln~a 22209 703 243 3000 
Vol. 5, No. 4 
April, 1979 
Executive Branch Plans for DP Acquisitions Outlined 
FY '80 BUDGET REQUESTS IN COMPUTER AREA CONTINUE TO RISE; 
ARPA, ADTS, NSF, NTIA REQUESTS SUMMARIZED 
Despite a pearly 10 per cent drop in the overall Fiscal Year 1980 U.S. 
Budget proposed by President Carter in January (from $588 billiap to 
$532 billion) , the Administrat ion's budget requests in the computer area 
continue to rise. Nevertheless, concern has been emressed by some 
professional groups, such as the Councid f Scientiric Society Presidents, 
that scientific research budgets are ttvulns rable" and that many will not 
survive Congressional scrut iny . 
Specific Requests, The Budget seeks $48 million for the Informati~r~ 
Processing Techniques Off ice of the Defense Department s Advanced Research 
Projects Agency, reflecting a $6.2 nillion increase over the ,FY t79 
budget request of $41.8 million. Thec Automated Data 6 ~elecommdications 
Service of the General Services Administration is asking for $8.97 
million in FY '80, also representing an ,in-crease. $19.3 million is 
requested for qfComputer Researchft by the National Science Foundation, up 
from FY ' 79. The Commerce bepartmentt s National Bureaui of Standards is 
seeking@$12.09 million in the area ~f IFomputel! science 5 Technology, It 
an increase over FY '79. The science 6 Education Admifilstration within 
% 
- -- 
IN THIS,-Is-m 
W 8Q BUDGET- REQUESTS IN COMPUTER AREA 
CONTINUETORISE.. ....ern......*......... -1 
TRANSBOWR DATA FLOWS .SUBCOMMITTEE 
DIXUsSES QECP,GUIDELINES. ............ 2 
AFIPS IN WASHI~GTON 
MIPS' FANEL FORMING d~ % 
...... 
PRWOSED NATIONAL COMMISSION ON USE OF COMPUTERS. 
4 
NEWS BRIEFS ....................-. ... -4 
Copyright 1979 by the American Federation 'of Information Processing . 
Societies, Inc. 
Copying without fee iis permittea provided that the 
copies are not made or distributed for direct 
comercia1 advantage 
and credit t'o the source 1s giv6n. To copymtherwise, or republish: 
revires a fee and/or specific permission 
the Department of Agriculture is asking for $9.86 million to cover 
'Technical Information Systems," reflecting an increase over Fr 79. In 
tlInformation Technology & Policy," ~oherce's Nasional Telecommunications 
& Information Administration has requested $3.9 million, slightly less 
than the previous fiscal year. 
Executive Branch DP Plhs . On January 30th, the Office of Management % 
Budget (OMB) released estimates compiling Executive Branch plans for 
major acquisitions bf general purpose data processing from FY 1979 
through FY 1980. These plans are outllned In the following chart. 
TRANSBORDER DATA FLOWS SUBCOMMITTEE 
DISCUSSES INCLUSION OF 'MANUAL FILES, LEGAL PERSONS 
- 
IN OECD GUIDELINES 
Preliminary OMB Estimates of General Purpose Data Processing Resources 
in the FY 1980 Budget (Dollars in M~llions) 
FY 78 W79 tT 80 
(est 1 (est 
Department of Agllrculture 94 3 111 5 1183 
Department of Commerce 107 7 125 8 140 4 
Department of Defense 1 936 0 2 278 6 2 602 7 
Department of Energy 277 0 306 9 351 6 
Department of HEW 430 0 492 2 529 0 
Department of H U D 18 8 23 8 29 0 
Department of the Interlor 52 0 63 1 67 9 
Departmenf'of Justice 39 9 47 2 50 1 
Department of Labor 44 9 56 6 59 5 
Department of State 12 4 18 6 21 0 
Department of Transpoitation 69 4 85 5 98 5 
Department of the Treasury 520 9 557 8 586 2 
Environmental Protection Agency 35 2 38 5 40 9 
Geperal Servlces Administration 60 7 53 5 55 2 
National Aeronaut~cs and Space Adm 184 9 202 7 21 02 
Veterans Admin~strat~on -80 5 113 4 ~74 9 
Corps of Engineers 29 1 39 3 40 6 
Natlonal Sclence Foundat~on 14 2 17 4 17 9 
Office of.+Pet'sonnel Management 12 5 11 9 ;2 0 
Other Agencie5 95 9 123 4 154 2 
4,116.3 4,767.7 5,260.1 
L- 
The Subcommittee on Transborder Data Flows of the State Department 
Advisory Committee on International Investment, Technology 6 Development 
met at the StatdDepartment on January 29. 
(The Advlsdy Committee has 
recently changed zts name from the Advlsory Committee on Transnational 
Enterprises. ) 
A 
APRIL, 1979 AFIPS WASHINGTON REPORT 
Thomgs Pickering, Assistant Secretary of State for Oceans 4 International 
93 
Environmental & Scientific, Affairs, tqld the gathering that the State 
aepartment would publish internal papers on tramborder data flow issues 
(issues relating to the international tkansmission af computer data) 
a fter the President's Privacy Initiative has been approved and announced. 
The papers were scheduled to be released by the Government Printing 
ffice in early March. The State Department was also scheduled to 
=c?nvene a one-day seminar on transborder data flows last month. 
~mbassador. Herbert Hleman, of the U.S. Mission to the Organization for 
Economlc Cooperation and Development (OECD) , said that the most important 
unresolved issues before the OECD Drafting and Expert Groups are tfk 
inclusion of manual files, inclusion or exclusion of legal persons 
(i.e. corporations and certain other legal entities), handling of 9 
sensitive data, and establishment of a mechanism for the rtssolution of 
disputes. 
CoveraH >f Manual F,ibs. According to William Fishan, of the Nat~onal 
re1 ecommunications and Information Administrat ion (NTJA) , the U. S . has 
taken the $osition that it is conceptually unsound to distinguish between 
automatic and manual processing when working to insure privacy protection. 
In some technical areas (such as microfiche technology), it is impossible 
to say whether the processing is manual o'r automatic. since it includes 
aspects of both. U.S. domestic law doy not draw the distinction. 
Fishman noted that distinguishing between automatic and manual processing 
would weaken the "moral authorityw of the guidelines. knally, he said 
that restricting thC guidelines to automat~c processing sould cause 
governments to retreat to manual files tp evade the effect of the guidelines. 
Fishman noted, on the other hand, that most ~uiopean legislation only 
affects automatic processing. The Europeans also point out that the 
origin of these privaoy concerns comes, from computer developments. They 
also claim that it would be difficult for their data inspection boards 
to cover the many sensitive uses of manual files. 
Inclusion of Legal Persons {Corporations) as Protected Parties . Flshman 
observed that' privacy protecti~n is a civil rights Issue in the U.S. a~ld 
not an issue of corporate regulation. 
In the U. S. view, limialng protection 
to natural persons would make th guxdelines relate more clemly to 
privacy issues. 
The U.S. believes that the OECD is not in any event in a 
position to bro%de~ %he guidelines to include legal persons until it has 
studied thef area. 
Fishman conceded that some European laws cover legal persons (with some 
variation among them]. In some cases, wsmaller'L legal persons would be 
excluded from coverage. He zeta that the draft treaty of the Council 
df Europe would cover legal persons. 
US. J~GS Privacy Motivations, Not Trade Protectiqn. 
Fishman elnphasf zed 
that the U.S. see6the current effort as motivated largely by griwcy 
concerns -- civil rights, democratic concerns. 
While some nations, 
clearly want to limit **reign data processing from their markets, Fishman 
said that that interest is not significant in the current OECD effort. 
APRIL, 1979 
AFIPS WASHINGTON REPORT 
Another Meeting Scheduled; Subcommittee Expanded. The State Department 9 4 
scheduled another meeting of the subcommittee for March 9th to consider 
the-next draft of the guidelines, so publik comment can be provided to 
the U. S. delegation for a March 12th Drafting Group,meeting. 
Subcornmi tt ee Chairman Hugh Donaghue announced that the subcommittee 
membership has been ekpanded by the addition of seSen members. In the 
near future the subcommittee will 'form subgroups to consider economic, 
tariff, empl,oyment, and other issues in more detail. 
-- Alexander D. Roth 
ATIPS IN WASHINGTON 
AFIPS PANEL FOKMING ON 
PROPOSED NATIONAL COMMISSION ON USE OF COMPUTERS 
An AFfPS Panel is being formed to study the implications of a pending 
proposal for a National Commission the the Use of Comguters in Education 
(see Washington Report, 11/78, pp. 5-61, Alexander D. Roth, director of 
the MIPS Washington Office, announced last month. Co-chairing the AFIPS 
Panel are Dx E. Ronald Carruth, director for District Services, 
Minnesota Schnol Districts, St. Paul; and Prof. A.A. J . Hofl,;lan, Computer 
Science Program, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth. Ind~~iduals 
interested in serving on the panel should contact Mr. Roth at (703) 243- 
3000. A bill to establish the commission, introduced at the close of 
the last Congress (see Washin.ton Report, 12/78 p. 41, is expected to 
be reintroduced" this year. 
NEWS BRIEFS 
The 1956 Slastice Department Consene Decree with ATGT snould be modified 
to permit the'telephone cornpane to engage in data communications, 
according to legisiation introduced   arch 12th by Sen. Erne- F. 
Hollingg (D-S .C .) ; the bill, amending the Communicatio?zs Act of 
1934, ull be detailed in next month's AFIPS Washington Report. 
In February, the House joined the Senat& in passing S. 37 (see ~ash-in>t'on 
R~port, 3/79, p. 3: repealing the notice requirement of the Right 
to Pinancia2 Privacy Act; also, in February, Rep. Richardson Pre~r 
(D-N .C ,) introduced the Omnibus RighL to Pr.i.vacy Act of 1979, H.R. . 
2965 ( ldent jcal to legislation he introduced- in the last ~ongregs 
with the exception of a title concerning confidentiality 6f medical 
records. 
In February, Secretary of Cbmmerce Juanlta M. Kreps approved adoption of 
the 1/0 ChanlcraZ Level Interface, the '~ozller ControZ Interface, and 
the Channel Level 0nemtio&2 specifications for Magnetic Tape as 
Federal Informallcni- Y~gcessing Standards (FIPS) ; a fourth FIPS, thfi 
standard for rotating mass storage subsystems (%I wa's proposed by 
the National Bureau of Standards in January 
(see Ffashington Report, 
10/78, p. I). 
APRIL, 1979 AFIPS WASHINGTON REPORT 
'I[Tfie software development program for ACS [the Advanced Communications 
Sqrvice] will require a significant future effort previously unfore~een,~~ * 
ATGT told ae Federal Communications Commission in February, postponing 
- 
its plans to file ACS tariffs th5s June as previously announced (see 
Washhgton Report, 12/78f p. 6) ; however, AT4T repeated its request 
$or a declaratory ruling which would permit the Bell System to offer 
ACS over the telephone company's existing digital facilities. 
The number of Federal government computer installations (5. e. , iwluding 
general -purpose computer systems and minicomputers-) has risen 9.6 
per cent from 11,124 in FY 1977 to 12,190 in FY 197& as shown in 
the accompanying chart, according to the General Service Administrationts 
[GSA) Inventory of AutomatCc Qata Bocessing Equi.pmen& in the 
United States Govement, released last month by the GSA's Ayto- - 
mated' Data & Telecommunications Service; total value of Federal 
computer installations rose from $4.77 billion in FY 1977 to $4.89 
billion in FY 1978. 
Number of Computers by Fiscal Year 
1878 
tl8C81 lW3 1-f 1868 1969 1970 1971 1972 
Year 
In ~ebruary, the Social Security Administration promulgated new rules 
[#) to llprotect the integrity of the socid security number (SSN) 
by reducing its misusevi; thea rules require additional identif icdon 
for issuing cards with SSNs as well as for issuing duplicates or 
corrected cards. 
APRIL, 1979 AFIPS WASHINGTON REPORT 
In February, the National Association of Wade E Technical Schools 
filed suit to contest the Federql Trade Commissionvs (FTC) rules 
(gee Washington Reparts 3/79, p. 
8) which will give a prc mats 
refund to students who drop out of vocational schools; the 
association contends the FTC has used out dfited information in 
formulating the rules which become effective next year. 
Dr. Leland Johnson, formerly associate &clministrator for Policy Analysis 
6 Development, National Telecommunications 6 Information Administrat ion 
(NTIA) , has been named chief economist, NTIA; Dat e Hatf ield, head 
of the Federal Communica~ions Commissionls Office of Plans 6 Policies, 
succeeds Dr. Johnson as associate administrator; William Fishman, 
formerly deputy associat~ adminiqt'rator for Policy Analysis E 
Development, NTIA, has been named director of the NTIA Office of 
Planning 6 Policy Coordination. 
Rep. Morris K. Udall ID-Ariz.) and newly-elected Sen. Ted Stevens [R-Ala.) 
succeed Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass .) and Rep. Larry Whn, Jr. 
(R- Kan . ) , respectively, as chairman and vice-chairman of the 
Congressional Board of the Off ice of Technology Assessment (OTA) ; 
Dr: Eric H. Willis, a nuclear physicist kas been appointed assistant 
director of OTA; Dr. Wil'lis also heads OTAFs Smence, Information 4 
Transportation Division. 
In January, the President named three new members of the Natzonal 
Commission on Libraries 6 Information Science [NCLIS) : Francis Xeppel, 
director, Aspen Institute Program in Education -for a Changing Society; ' 
Bessie B . Moore, executive director, Arkassag State Counci 1 of ~cbwmic 
Education; and Philip A. Sprague , consultant , Miltop Roy CQ . 
Steven J. Jost, former Congressional aide, has been named director of the 
DPMA Washingrm Office. 
'J[T]he lack' of knowledge about the dimension of the real and potential 
restraints on transborder data f lowI1 is' the "most seri~us constraintv1 
on U.S. policymaking, according t6 a Carter Agministration repnrt 
filed with the House International Ope'rations Committee and the 
Senate Commerce, Science 6 Transp~rtation Committee, as requirdd by 
the Foreign Re Zations Authorization Act of 1979 (see Washington Report, 
12/78, p. 2). 
"[Flederal law should allow . . . [electropic funds transfer (EFT]] to 
develop in an aura of consumer confidence, a pro-EFT mq~d rather thad 
a negative, anti-environment , a situation which financial institutions 
might never b~ eble to overcome," according to an American Bar 
Association (ABA) Subcommittee on EFT; in a report, completed in 
February. the Subcommittee on EFT of the Law and Com~uter Committee. 
ABA section on Law E Technology, concluded that Itat 'this stage in the 
develepment of EFT, most consumers, and eve? financial institution 
customers, do nor appear to perceive stgtutory safeguards r)~ a key 
factor in-persuading them to use EFT." 
Ed: Information for the April, 1979, AFIPS Iv'ashing.bm Report is current 
I 
as of March 14, 1979, press time. Production assistance for the Washing- 
ton Reprt is provided by Linda Mart&. AFIPS societies have permission 
to use material in the newsletter for their owl publications. Documents 
indicated by the symbol wG#)lv are available on request to the Washington 
Office. Requests should snecify  he date(s) of the Report in which the 
document (s) appeared. Where price is noted, make dikcks payable to "AFIPSo" 
APRIL, 1979 AF I PS WASHINGTON REPORT 

References
1. Bennett, David C. Spatial and Te ra1 Uses of English 
~rdpositions: -An +:ssay "in S ational Semantics 
(Longman Ling'Tstlcs Library, 171, Longman," New Yosk 1975 

2. Chafe, Wallace. L. vMeanina an@ the Structure of Language, 
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1970. 

3. Encyclopaedia Britannica. Webster's Thir4 New Int,ernational 
Di~t.iona~,~Chicae;o, 1966.' 

4. Fillmore, Charles J. The case for case. Bdch,,%E. and Harms, 
R. I. (~d; ) Universals in Li~guistic Theory, Holt, ~inehart- 
and Winston,, ~ew york, l(jb8, % 1-88. 

Fillmbre, Charles J, TND~S af lexical information, Sernan- 
tics: ~n' ~nterdisci~lin&~ ~eader in Philosophy, Li~ietics, 
and P$chologx, Cambridge University Press, Cambridee , 1971 , 

6. Harary, P., Norman, R. Z., and Cartwright, 1). Stru tural 
Nodels: An Introduc$ion to the Theory of Directe 
John Wiley and Sons, Ink., New York, 1~965. 

7. Jackendoff, R, Morphological and Sedantic Regularities in , 
;the Lexicon, Indiana University Linnuis,tics Club, Blooming- 
ton, Tnaiana, 1974. 

8. Kats; J.J. and Podor, J.A., The strfacture of a semantic) 
theory. Language 39( 1963), 170-210. 

9. Nida, E.A. Component'ial Analysis of fleanrn~, Mouton. The 
Hague, 197% 

Olney, J., Revard, C., and Zipf, P. Toward the Development 
of Computational Aids for obtaining a Formal Semantic 
Description of English, SDC Document SP-Ze/66/00 1/00, 
System Developmmt Corp., Santa Monica, 1968. 

I I ilian, M, R. Semantic memory. Minsky , M (Ed ) Semantic 
Infarmation P~gceseing, MIT ~%es$, Cambridge, 7968, 21 6- 
270. 

12. Schank, R.C. Conceptual dependency: A theory of' natural 
bnguage understanding. Cognitiye Paycholo~ 3( 1972)~ 532- 
631 

13. Simmons, R. F. and Slocum, 3, Genqating English discourse 
from se6antic networks. Commu~cations of the ACM* 15(.1972) 
89 1-905 

14. Simmons, R.P. and Amsler, R.A. Mbdeling DiGtionary Data, 
University of Texas Department of Computer Sc-iences, 
Austin, 1975. 

Simmons, R.F. and Lehmann, W.P. A Proposal to Develop .a 
Computatidnal Methodolofiy for ~exvipg Natural Language 
Semantic Structures via Analysis of ~achine-~eada5le 
Dictionaries, TJniversiCy of Texas,. Austin, 1976. (ReBearch 
proposal submitted to the Natidnal Science Foundation, 

16. Winograd, %. Understanding natural language. Cognitive 
Psychology 3(1972), 1-191. 

17. Winston, P. H. Artificial Ihtelligence , Addison-Wesley, 
Reading, Mass., 19'1 
