Open uhermjakob opened 10 years ago
Under this proposal, I suppose "semi-automatic weapon" would be
(w / weapon
:mod (a / automatic
:degree (s / semi)))
whereas "semi-democratic election" would be
(e / elect-01
:ARG1-of (h / have-mod-91
:ARG2 (d / democracy)
:degree (s / semi)))
right? I can't say I'm wild about how different those look, but this may be the best option nevertheless.
I'd love to have this, but I'm a little unclear about how much we should use it -- especially with negation. To modify Nathan's example above, could "undemocratic election" be the following?:
(e / elect-01
:ARG1-of (h / have-mod-91 :polarity -
:ARG2 (d / democracy)))
Many negated adjectives seem to exist on some scale between meaning "X has the attribute of not-Y" and meaning "X does not have the attribute Y", with lexicalized negations like "my stomach is uneasy" at one end and equational negations like "john is not a lawyer" at another. I like that we've really lumped those senses together so far, by not allowing "be". Have-mod-91 would essentially add what amounts of an attributive copula, and so I'd suspect that the some annotators would thus be tempted to annotate "John is not a laywer" as:
(l / lawyer
:ARG2-of (h2 / have-mod-91 :polarity -
:ARG1 (p2 / person :name (n / name :op1 "John"))))
Do we want to allow this? If not, can we explicitly discourage it?
There were a few tricky sentences in the SDL section of sentences that annotators (including me) struggled with and that kept getting AMR Checker error messages. I finally resorted to re-ifying :mod.
Similarly: Brits and non-Brits, with (have-mod-91 :polarity -)
AMR search command: rs have-mod-91 (will yield 4 instances)
Essentially the same, but maybe more dignified might be have-domain-91 with swapped args.
Any better ideas?