When should Relators be included in the associated unit?

[nschneid]

This has arisen in #35 and similar.

Suggestion: Instead of a distinction between Scene units, where they do mark participants etc., and non-Scene units, make the distinction about Center vs. non-Center.

thinking_P [about_R the problem_C]_A a cup_C of_R water_C Queen_C [of_R England_C]_E the_E house_C [on_R Main Street]_E [between_R [the_E school_C]_C and_N [the_E church_C]_C]_E

There may need to be a special treatment of the Cs in coordination (e.g. coordinated PPs).

[nschneid]

I am thinking_P [about_R French_C]_A I am thinking_P [about_R [(I)_A learning_P French_A]_C]_A —this is nicely parallel with a story_C [about_R French_C]_E a story_C [about_R [(IMP)_A learning_P French_A]_C]_E

For coordination I think we could do:

It happens [[after_R noon_C]_C and_N [before_R midnight_C]_C]_T (PP coordination)

It happens [[before_R (midnight)_C]_C and_N [after_R midnight_C]_C]_T (P coordination)

[omriabnd]

Agreed.

On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 1:55 AM Nathan Schneider notifications@github.com wrote:

I am thinking_P [about_R French_C]_A I am thinking_P [about_R [(I)_A learning_P French_A]_C]_A —this is nicely parallel with a story_C [about_R French_C]_E a story_C [about_R [(IMP)_A learning_P French_A]_C]_E

For coordination I think we could do:

It happens [[after_R noon_C]_C and_N [before_R midnight_C]_C]_T (PP coordination)

It happens [[before_R (midnight)_C]_C and_N [after_R midnight_C]_C]_T (P coordination)

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/UniversalConceptualCognitiveAnnotation/docs/issues/43#issuecomment-434123032, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIG86xGVafE93g10hIb5nh89E94ImD06ks5up5VegaJpZM4X-J1N .

[dotdv]

So this means that when a Relator relates to a P/S it should be included as well, right?: series [of lectures]_P? And in this example from the guidelines (p.18): ``The_E outbreak_C]_D [of_R the_E War_C ]_P''

[omriabnd]

Yes

On Sat, 3 Nov 2018, 09:46 dotdv <notifications@github.com wrote:

So this means that when a Relator relates to a P/S it should be included as well, right?: series [of lectures]_P? And in this example from the guidelines (p.18): ``The_E outbreak_C]_D [of_R the_E War_C ]_P''

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/UniversalConceptualCognitiveAnnotation/docs/issues/43#issuecomment-435568182, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIG86yKIiwBhI91Ejlot6WRVwTwY353yks5urUnHgaJpZM4X-J1N .

[nschneid]

So this means that when a Relator relates to a P/S it should be included as well, right?

I could go either way here.

With articles changing to F, I suppose it could be:

The_F outbreak_D of_R the_F War_P

or

The_F outbreak_D [of_R the_F War_C]_P

[omriabnd]

if we're going for simplicity of the guidelines, how about we just write: always put Rs with their objects. So:

The_F outbreak_D [of_R the_F War_C]_P Cup_C [of_R water_C]_C

Dozens_Q [of_R people_C]_C

The two latter cases will then be normalized to Cup_C of_R water_C by the normalization script, but annotators shouldn't worry about that.

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 5:46 PM Nathan Schneider notifications@github.com wrote:

So this means that when a Relator relates to a P/S it should be included as well, right?

I could go either way here.

With articles changing to F, I suppose it could be:

The_F outbreak_D of_R the_F War_P

or

The_F outbreak_D [of_R the_F War_C]_P

— You are receiving this because you were assigned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub https://github.com/UniversalConceptualCognitiveAnnotation/docs/issues/43#issuecomment-435597666, or mute the thread https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AIG868GXohrcIvTMXDcpp1qMqakpn499ks5urbpNgaJpZM4X-J1N .

[omriabnd]

Resolution: they should always go with their prepositional object. Dotan, could you change the guidelines to reflect this?

[dotdv]

I am thinking_P [about_R [(I)_A learning_P French_A]_C]_A

I think the convention we've been following so far is to annotate it without a unifying C: I am thinking_P [about_R (I)_A learning_P French_A]_A The only place where we ask to add a unifying C is when the R relates to mutiple units that carry an identicle role (section Elaboration of/by a Coordination.): "John met [with_R [Jane_C and_N Mary_C]_C]_A"

So I think we just need to decide if we want to change this convention or not.

[dotdv]

Do you agree with this annotation? [a group]$_Q$ [of$_R$ journalists$_C$]$_{P+A}$

[nschneid]

Why not

[a group]_Q [of_R [journalists_P+A]_C]_C

which would get simplified to

[a group]_Q of_R [journalists_P+A]_C

?

[omriabnd]

So I think we just need to decide if we want to change this convention or not.

We do not want to change it.