<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="P97-1060">
  <Title>Representing Constraints with Automata</Title>
  <Section position="6" start_page="473" end_page="474" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Conclusions and Outlook
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> In this paper we presented a first step towards the realization of a system using automata-based theorem-proving techniques to implement linguistic processing and theory verification. Despite the staggering complexity bound the success of and the continuing work on these techniques in computer science promises a useable tool to test formalization of grammars. The advantages are readily apparent. The direct use of a succinct and flexible description language together with an environment to test the formalizations with the resulting finite, deterministic tree automata offers a way of combining the needs of both formalization and processing. And furthermore, the CLP extension offers an even more powerful language which allows a clear separation of processing and specification issues while retaining the power and flexibility of the original. Since it allows the control of the generation process, the addition of information to the constraint base is dependent on the input which keeps the number of variables smaller and by this the automata more compact.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> Nevertheless it remains to be seen how far the system can be advanced with the use of an optimized theorem-prover. The number of variables our current prototype can handle lies between eight and eleven. 1deg This is not enough to compile or test all interesting aspects of a formalization. So further work will definitly involve the optimization of the prototype implementation, while we await the development of more sophisticated tools like MONA++.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> It seems to be promising to improve the (very basic) CLP interpreter, too. The HShfeld and Smolka scheme allows the inclusion of existential quantification into the relational extension. We intend to use this to provide the theoretical background of the implementation of a garbage collection procedure which projects variables from the constraint store which are either local to a definite clause or ZdegNote that this corresponds to 256 to 2048 different bitstrings.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="3">  explicitly marked for projection in the program so that the constraint store can be kept as small as possible.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>