[This entry reprinted by kind permission of the author: Philippe Blache <pb@llaor.unice.fr>, University of Nice-Sophia Antipolis] Current linguistics theories often describe syntactic relations as constraints on linguistic structures. It is in particular the case of unification-based theories. But linguistic constraints are generally far from the CLP ones and the question remains: is NLP a constraint satisfaction problem ? [[MBJ adds an editorial note: Micha Meier <micha@ecrc.de> feels that NLP _is_ a typical CSP.]] It is still difficult to say what could be the actual advantages of a CLP approach for natural language processing in general. But if we don't have a global answer, several works propose CLP representation of particular problems such as linear precedence (cf Patrick Saint- Dizier), disjunctive values (cf Franz Guenthner), subcategorization, etc ... I'm currently working on the interpretation of HPSG's principles with boolean constraints. The problem in this case comes from the fact that the instantiation principles of this theory can be seen as constraints on feature structures, but using actual active constraints need a very rigid (and heavy) representation of these structures. A compromise between a pure CLP and a pure linguistic approach is still inevitable. I would be deeply interested in other approaches to this problem. Franz Guenthner (1988) "Features and Values 1988" CIS-BERICHT-90-2, University of Munich Patrick Saint-Dizier (1994) Advanced Logic Programming for Natural Language Processing, Academic Press, London Philippe Blache (1992) "Using Active Constraints to Parse GPSGs" in proceedings of COLING'92Go Back Up