[rfc-i] Natural Language Processing (NLP) applied to RFCs
Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 26 March 2019 10:39 UTC
Return-Path: <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4142E1202B0 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:39:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.199
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.199 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qF1YVOe2OiaR for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfc-editor.org (rfc-editor.org [4.31.198.49]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4855C1202A3 for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:39:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57A06B81D21; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:39:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Original-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Delivered-To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83A16B81D21 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:38:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at rfc-editor.org
Received: from rfc-editor.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (rfcpa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2nklV8Evigxw for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-out02.uio.no (mail-out02.uio.no [IPv6:2001:700:100:8210::71]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 71478B81D20 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 03:38:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx11.uio.no ([129.240.10.83]) by mail-out02.uio.no with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1h8jTz-0001ov-Ld for rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:39:03 +0100
Received: from dhcp-96ac.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.150.172]) by mail-mx11.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1h8jTz-0009lj-7T for rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:39:03 +0100
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
Message-Id: <9B960428-CDAD-4019-95C4-E2B236B2CB73@ifi.uio.no>
Date: Tue, 26 Mar 2019 11:39:01 +0100
To: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx11.uio.no: 31.133.150.172 is neither permitted nor denied by domain of ifi.uio.no) client-ip=31.133.150.172; envelope-from=michawe@ifi.uio.no; helo=dhcp-96ac.meeting.ietf.org;
X-UiO-Spam-info: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-5.0, required=5.0, autolearn=disabled, UIO_MAIL_IS_INTERNAL=-5, uiobl=NO, uiouri=NO)
X-UiO-Scanned: 6DBCF46905FCD6149B81EB5A967E069C134180D4
Subject: [rfc-i] Natural Language Processing (NLP) applied to RFCs
X-BeenThere: rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "A list for discussion of the RFC series and RFC Editor functions." <rfc-interest.rfc-editor.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/options/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.rfc-editor.org/pipermail/rfc-interest/>
List-Post: <mailto:rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest>, <mailto:rfc-interest-request@rfc-editor.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
Errors-To: rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org
Sender: rfc-interest <rfc-interest-bounces@rfc-editor.org>
Dear all, I’m planning to do research with colleagues in NLP, with various ideas on applying it to RFCs (and, perhaps more importantly, Internet-drafts, which means that we can give feedback *before* RFC publication). One example outcome of this is that we could perhaps produce a tool that automatically gives feedback on language clarity - e.g. “You may want to check this sentence again, are you sure it specifies what should go into that header field clearly enough?” Heck, perhaps we can even give feedback like “shouldn’t this be an uppercase SHOULD here?”. I’d like to understand what people think about doing such stuff, in general - would a tool that gives some such feedback as a result of using NLP be useful to have? (obviously, *I* think so…) Cheers, Michael _______________________________________________ rfc-interest mailing list rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest
- [rfc-i] Natural Language Processing (NLP) applied… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rfc-i] Natural Language Processing (NLP) app… Ted Lemon
- Re: [rfc-i] Natural Language Processing (NLP) app… Martin J. Dürst
- Re: [rfc-i] Natural Language Processing (NLP) app… Michael Welzl
- Re: [rfc-i] Natural Language Processing (NLP) app… Colin Perkins
- Re: [rfc-i] Natural Language Processing (NLP) app… Carsten Bormann