IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [rfc-i] Natural Language Processing (NLP) applied to RFCs

Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> Tue, 26 March 2019 23:44 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 88C97120139 for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:44:54 -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 OiZ3eVPwZJNx for <ietfarch-rfc-interest-archive@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:44:52 -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 C715512012F for <rfc-interest-archive-eekabaiReiB1@ietf.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:44:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rfcpa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by rfc-editor.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5162B821C1; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:44:41 -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 A17F2B821C0 for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:44:39 -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 JhVQE8uFrADV for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:44:37 -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 4FD26B821BF for <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>; Tue, 26 Mar 2019 16:44:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-mx12.uio.no ([129.240.10.84]) 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 1h8vkG-0009pZ-Sj; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:44:40 +0100
Received: from dhcp-96ac.meeting.ietf.org ([31.133.150.172]) by mail-mx12.uio.no with esmtpsa (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) user michawe (Exim 4.91) (envelope-from <michawe@ifi.uio.no>) id 1h8vkG-0006LJ-0V; Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:44:40 +0100
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.2 \(3445.102.3\))
From: Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no>
In-Reply-To: <155dad06-660c-9d23-4d57-71433085e40c@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2019 00:44:37 +0100
Message-Id: <346B93E5-A3AC-4E11-B51A-E866004B81A5@ifi.uio.no>
References: <9B960428-CDAD-4019-95C4-E2B236B2CB73@ifi.uio.no> <ADFC009B-6E01-43FF-ADEC-35E381AD57D5@fugue.com> <155dad06-660c-9d23-4d57-71433085e40c@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
To: "\"Martin J. Dürst\"" <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.102.3)
X-UiO-SPF-Received: Received-SPF: neutral (mail-mx12.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: 823AD727E2AD30460518EA2D0056FD72EE0D2AA2
Subject: Re: [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>
Cc: "rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org" <rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org>
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>


> On Mar 27, 2019, at 12:40 AM, Martin J. Dürst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
> 
> On 2019/03/26 22:03, Ted Lemon wrote:
>> On Mar 26, 2019, at 11:39 AM, Michael Welzl <michawe@ifi.uio.no> wrote:
>>> 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?
>> 
>> Yes, definitely.   This is a perennial problem.
> 
> I very much agree with the problem. Of course, it will depend on how 
> useful the tool's output is :-).

Sure - it’s easy to imagine such a tool just producing a long list of useless garbage, and nobody would want to spend their time sifting through this.
It’s just a research idea at this point, knowing that people consider the problem important and support the idea of trying to construct such a tool is good enough for me  :)

Cheers,
Michael

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email