DF data: multi-sentence posts ("and" vs multi-sentence role)

[mgeorgescu]

Should multi-sentence posts (without proper multi-sentence punctuation) be candidates for the "multi-sentence" role? Or should we opt for "and" at the top and try to link accordingly? Pls see some examples below.

If multi-sentence role should be used, should we opt for cross sentence co-reference or each sentence should be annotated as a separate sentence (with no co-reference at all)?

e.g.

• each side is allowed one posting per day , then after every two posts its discussed freely by all for two days , then each side makes a post , as the palestinian side is the one with most demands lets let them start( if its ok by all ),
• i want to start a thread here , that simulates peace negotiations between two sides , palestinians ( me and who ever volunteers ) against Israeli side ( i suppose Volunteer wouldnot mind representing them and any one he chooses )
• That goes for Isreal too , if Egypt or Syria were anything worthwhile , Isreal would n't of got what they did .

Any feedback is much appreciated. Thank you.

[uhermjakob]

Should multi-sentence posts (without proper multi-sentence punctuation) be candidates for the "multi-sentence" role?

Yes, a sentence should be annotated as a multi-sentence if it ought to be split by an end-of-sentence punctuation (such as a period) and that end-of-sentence marker just has been omitted (due to sloppy writing). AMRs should not depend on bad punctuation. Natalia Nistor did a great job splitting up the sentences above.

If multi-sentence role should be used, should we opt for cross sentence co-reference or each sentence should be annotated as a separate sentence (with no co-reference at all)?

Just like in "normal" multi-sentence cases, we would annotate the :snt1, :snt2 etc. separately (with no co-reference between :snt1 and :snt2 etc.).
For an example, see http://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/popup/multi-sentence.html

[mgeorgescu]

Thank you for the quick feedback Ulf,