Open goodmami opened 8 years ago
I think :consist-of
is an inverse that just happens to be more useful for annotators than :consist
because of the syntax of the verb "consist" in English.
:prep-on-behalf-of
and :prep-out-of
are prepositional placeholders for semantic relations, and so are not inverses.
Thanks for explaining. Would it make sense then to name relations with multiple words using underscores instead of hyphens (e.g. :prep-on_behalf_of
and :prep-out_of
), so that processors of AMR could rely on *-of
being an inverted relation? Otherwise they'll have to maintain lists of these special relations.
I'll raise this with the AMR design team, but given that we want to discourage :prep-X
roles anyway, a more likely outcome is replacing those two with proper semantic relations.
In the meantime, I guess there needs to be a special case that any role starting with :prep-
is not an inverse.
I did find one :prep-X-of
relation in the data that IS an inverse:
The U.S. is one of the few industrialized nations that does n't have a higher standard of regulation for the smooth , needle - like fibers such as crocidolite that are classified as amphobiles , according to Brooke T. Mossman , a professor of pathlogy at the University of Vermont College of Medicine .
...
:ARG0-of (h / have-03 :polarity -
:ARG1 (s2 / standard
:ARG1-of (h2 / high-02
:degree (m2 / more))
:prep-with-of (r / regulate-01
:ARG1 (f2 / fiber
...
This annotation is problematic and should be fixed.
Ulf: the official inverse of :consist-of
is :consist-of-of
, though this never occurs in the corpus.
Can we remove :prep-on-behalf-of
and :prep-out-of
?
@ulfulf will look into whether there is an official list of inverses.
All roles listed at http://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/roles.html are primary (i.e. non-inverse) roles, in particular:
That means that their inverses are :consist-of-of, :prep-on-behalf-of-of and :prep-out-of-of respectively. Number of times that such x-of-of forms currently occur in the AMR release corpus: 0. Please also note that the inverse of :domain is :mod.
:prep-with-of is indeed a valid inverse of :prep-with.
Ideally, all :prep-x and :conj-as-if will eventually be replaced by something more semantic. Compared to the early days of AMR, we have already made great progress to reduce the number of such :prep-x roles.
Concepts and roles use only dashes, never underscores. Allowing a mix of dashes and underscore will might make annotations more difficult for annotators and consistency checking.
AMR Dictionary entry for :consist-of updated to include a note on its inverse: http://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/amr-dict.html#:consist-of
Thanks @ulfulf. I've opened an issue in the AMR editor about sentence nw.wsj_0003.20, whose use of :prep-with-of
looks wrong to me.
The :prep-with-of
is wrapped up in the treatment of "standard": #197
Sorry to comment on a closed issue, but note the following:
http://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/roles.html states the following under "Notes":
- For each role :role, there is an inverse role :role-of. The inverse of roles such as :consist-of is :consist etc.
Where, as @ulfulf pointed out (and documented at http://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/amr-dict.html#:consist-of), the inverse is :consist-of-of
.
Thanks, Michael, for catching this inconsistency! I corrected http://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/roles.html
Some relations use "-of" in their apparently default form:
:consist-of
:on-behalf-of
:out-of
If we invert these relations, do we remove the
-of
or add an additional-of
? E.g., in "Gold makes up the ring"or
In the guidelines underneath the relation inventory, it says "All relations above have inverses of the form :X-of", so my guess is the latter. Is this correct?