Closed jholman203 closed 11 years ago
cbonial
commented
11 years ago The attacks range from viruses, flame-mail (abusive e-mail), stone throwing (disfiguring a home page) to cyber squatters and scripts for breaking into Internet sites.
For these cases, can we introduce the define-01? The only other option seems to be :domain, meaning "flame mail is abusive email," but "define" seems to be more semantically appropriately.
nschneid
commented
11 years ago define-01 sounds good for the fame-mail and stone throwing cases, but are they instances of "in other words" rephrasing that is broader than just definitions? I'm thinking, for instance, if there is a statement of something in legal jargon that is then rephrased in plain English—not necessarily a definition per se, but an explanation-by-paraphrase:
"SCOTUS Reportedly Grants Cert in Perry v. Hollingsworth"—that is, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case challenging California's Prop 8, which banned same-sex marriage.
How about a :paraphrase role reifying as mean-01?
ArchnaBhatia
commented
11 years ago I like define-01 as well as :paraphrase options. But I think neither of them apply to all cases. The use of a parenthetical can have many different functions: it may define a concept, it may abbreviate a term, it may provide further information that may not be central to the discussion, it may specify the type of the entity mentioned which has many different types, it may provide the meaning, i.e. paraphrase, it may provide citations, references, cross-references etc. I feel they all should not come under "paraphrase"/define-01 or if they all should come under the same thing, then it should not be called "paraphrase"/define-01 but may be something more general like "additional_information".
Also there are different strategies authors use to provide such information, parentheticals is one, some others are: commas around the additional content, hyphens or colons before the additional content, etc. Should they all get the same representation or should it be different?
kevincrawfordknight
commented
11 years ago we go with this:
(f / flame-mail :arg0-of (m / mean-01 :arg1 (e / e-mail :instrument-of (a / abuse-01))))
or this short-cut:
(f / flame-mail :meaning (e / e-mail :instrument-of (a / abuse-01)))
I've come across a few examples of parentheticals within a sentence in the Proxy data that seem to carry more significant semantic content than what we have seen before. Here are some examples: The attacks range from viruses, flame-mail (abusive e-mail), stone throwing (disfiguring a home page) to cyber squatters and scripts for breaking into Internet sites. Threats and risks are managed like drinking water from (Indian) taps, and visiting Srinagar (in restive Kashmir).
What is the best way to treat this kind of information in an AMR? In the first example they are giving examples/defining the term they follow; in the second example they seem to be giving information that might be unsure or extraneous.