Open nschneid opened 9 years ago
In Unified PropBank, I think the two roles ought to be distinguished anyway for risk of vs. risk to/at risk. Cf. danger of/to and in danger; peril of/to and in peril; jeopardy of/to and in jeopardy.
Here's a link to the Fillmore paper: http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/pubs/ai/towarda92.pdf
Decision: This probably needs separate PropBank roles.
In an EMNLP talk, Gerald Penn points out that the direct object of the verb risk can mean either of two things: an asset (good) that is put in jeopardy, or a negative consequence (bad) that becomes a danger. He found that conflating these two readings up is problematic for summarization.
It appears that neither PropBank nor VerbNet distinguish these two readings: there is a single role for the direct object,
ARG1
orTheme
. Perhaps this is because the two versions of this argument never appear together in a sentence.Is this a problem for AMR? Here are some examples returned by a release search:
Asset reading
good savings accounts where capital is not at risk
risking public health
Dangerous consequence reading
risk surveillance or arrest
the serious earthquake risk in the Ngawa region
Using
:mod
, notrisk-01
relatively low risk of serious infections
health risks are minimal