propbank / propbank-frames Goto Github PK

http://verbs.colorado.edu/propbank/framesets-english-aliases/address.html

We have Arg3-PRD: address as but in the second example an instantiation of Argm-prd. So PRD was supposed to be a numbered argument (core) or a modifier? We actually have no example of ARG3.

The theme is usually associated with ARG1 in both give.01 and buy.01:

http://verbs.colorado.edu/propbank/framesets-english-aliases/give.html

Arg0-PAG: giver (vnrole: 13.1-1-agent)
Arg1-PPT: thing given (vnrole: 13.1-1-theme)
Arg2-GOL: entity given to (vnrole: 13.1-1-recipient)

http://verbs.colorado.edu/propbank/framesets-english-aliases/buy.html

Arg0-PAG: buyer (vnrole: 13.5.1-agent)
Arg1-PPT: thing bought (vnrole: 13.5.1-theme)
Arg2-DIR: seller (vnrole: 13.5.1-source)
Arg3-VSP: price paid (vnrole: 13.5.1-asset)
Arg4-GOL: benefactive (vnrole: 13.5.1-beneficiary)

but in the promise.01 it was associated with ARG2. Any special reason for that?

http://verbs.colorado.edu/propbank/framesets-english-aliases/promise.html

Arg0-PAG: promiser (vnrole: 13.3-agent)
Arg1-GOL: person promised to (vnrole: 13.3-goal)
Arg2-PPT: promised action (vnrole: 13.3-theme)

This appeared in the context of our current work on revision and consolidation of the Portuguese Propbank at http://github.com/LR-POR/propbank-pt

Hi, the final version of the branch release-v3.4.0 contains a heavily shortened version of role-reification.xml (with respect to commit 5214cb7) and have-org.xml is gone. Why is that so?
I did not find the information which disappeared elsewhere

There is a duplicate role set ID overhang.01. It is defined in both hang.xml and overhang.xml.

represent frames

represent.01 essentially means "constitute", as in "they represent the majority of votes".

The other sense, which has to do with presentation/depiction, should apply to "John represented the plan as a nefarious power grab."

http://verbs.colorado.edu/propbank/framesets-english-aliases/recall.html

Definition of the ARG2 says "Arg2-GOL: recalled to where" but guidelines says

Because PropBank has coarse-grained senses which treat metaphorical extensions of a sense in the same manner as the literal sense …

So I understand that in the golden data:

Some 2,000 junior officers of the old Baath army have been recalled to duty in recent months, something Chalabi would have blocked if he could have.

to duty should be annotated as ARG2 of recall.03. Am I right?

One of the example is:

Financial problems make them unattractive takeover targets.

The UD analysis, based on EWT corpus, take the token them the iobj of make. I would annotate as obj, but anyway, this is a dependent of the verb make, a different constituent from the rest of the sentence unattractive takeover targets.

In the sense documentation, the example is analysed as them as part of the constituent them unattractive takeover targets. This decision is probably based on the constituent analysis of a similar sentence in OntoNotes:

(TOP (S (S-NOM-SBJ (NP-SBJ (-NONE- *PRO*))
                   (VP (VBG Living)
                       (PP-LOC-CLR (IN in)
                                   (NP (NNP Hong)
                                       (NNP Kong)))))
        (PRN (, ,)
             (S (NP-SBJ (PRP he))
                (VP (VBZ says)
                    (SBAR (-NONE- 0)
                          (S (-NONE- *?*)))))
             (, ,))
        (VP (VBD made)
            (S (NP-SBJ (PRP him))
               (ADJP-PRD (JJ sensitive)
                         (PP (IN to)
                             (NP (NP (DT the)
                                     (NNS limits))
                                 (PP (IN on)
                                     (NP (NML (NN food)
                                              (, ,)
                                              (NN power)
                                              (CC and)
                                              (NN water))
                                         (NNS supplies))))))))
        (. .)))

1. Arg0: Financial problems
2. Rel: make
3. Arg1: them unattractive takeover targets

What about the UD analysis? What about this example be the case of sense make.01 if we take the syntatic analysis of UD?

1. Arg0: Financial problems
2. Rel: made
3. Arg1: them
4. Arg2: unattractive takeover targets

Will the propbank in chinese be put on the git, please?

Ontonotes:

Although he never got around to planning his life , Chao , who has always liked to " follow his feelings , " feels that every step he has taken has been steady and enriching .

got around to planning.. was annotated with get.03 = become. It does make some sense, but maybe the more specific sense?

tell.01 covers "tell that" usages like "they will tell you that the favorite figure of the moment is the Maneki Neko" and "The score tell you what the characters are thinking and feeling."

• Arg0-PAG: Speaker (vnrole: 37.1.1-1-1-agent, 37.2-1-agent)
• Arg1-PPT: Utterance (vnrole: 37.1.1-1-1-topic, 37.2-1-topic)
• Arg2-GOL: Hearer (vnrole: 37.1.1-1-1-recipient, 37.2-1-recipient)

(say.01 is similar.) What about "tell to" or "say to", i.e. give an instruction? Should this be a different sense? Should there be a different arg for the instruction? Or should ARG1 apply to both statements and instructions?

It seems like the distinction would matter for dialogue and other applications.

I am aware of the fact that AMR has special rolesets ending in -91, but I noticed there is also at least one difference in "normal" rolesets.
Specifically, ablate.01 has only roles 0, 1 and 2, but in AMR it also has role number 3. This role is used, for example, in AMR bel_pmid_1222_6756.17894 in the BioAMR data set:

(c2 / cause-01
      :ARG0 (s / suppress-01
            :ARG1 (t2 / transcribe-01
                  :ARG1 p))
      :ARG1 (a / ablate-01
            :ARG1 (e3 / express-03
                  :ARG2 (p / protein :name (n3 / name :op1 "RALT")))
            :ARG3 (m / molecular-physical-entity
                  :ARG0-of (i2 / inhibit-01
                        :ARG1 (e2 / enzyme :name (n2 / name :op1 "MEK-1")))))
      :ARG1-of (i3 / indicate-01
            :ARG0 (a2 / analyze-01
                  :instrument (t3 / thing :name (n4 / name :op1 "Northern" :op2 "blot"))
                  :ARG1-of (p2 / present-01
                        :location (f / figure :mod 3)))))

Are the PropBank frame files out of date, or does AMR use a different set of frames, as opposed to what is said in the README?

obstruct.01 currently has 2 roles:

<role descr="blocker, obstruction" f="PAG" n="0">
          <vnrole vncls="67" vntheta="Agent"/>
        </role>
        <role descr="thing obstructed" f="PPT" n="1">
          <vnrole vncls="67" vntheta="Theme"/>
</role>

I think there should be an instrument role, similar to block.01, e.g. for "I obstructed his view with my hand".

In the EWT corpus, we have many light verbs:

% find . -name '*.prop' -exec awk '$6 ~ /\.LV/ {print $6}' {} \; | sort | uniq -c | sort -nr
 244 have.LV
 151 make.LV
 104 take.LV
  75 do.LV
  66 give.LV
  27 get.LV
  11 pay.LV
   2 perform.LV
   2 keep.LV
   2 hold.LV
   1 strike.LV
   1 set.LV
   1 put.LV
   1 open.LV
   1 go.LV
   1 extend.LV
   1 come.LV

But in the frame files, I found only three cases of senses with the suffix .LV defined: keep, make and take:

(("keep.01" "keep.02" "keep.03" "keep.04" "keep.06" "keep.LV" "keep_up.05"
  "keep_up.10" "keep_on.08")
 ("make.01" "make.02" "make.05" "make.06" "make.18" "make.19" "make.27"
  "make.LV" "make_up.07" "make_up.08" "make_up.09" "make_up.10" "make_up.11"
  "make_up.16" "make_out.12" "make_out.13" "make_out.15" "make_out.23"
  "make_out.26" "make_it.14" "make_off.17" "make_over.22" "make_believe.24"
  "make_do.25" "making.03")
 ("take.01" "take.02" "take.03" "take.04" "take.14" "take.15" "take.10"
  "take.16" "take.17" "take.25" "take.LV" "take.32" "take.34" "take_away.05"
  "take_in.06" "take_in.23" "take_off.07" "take_off.08" "take_off.19"
  "take_off.18" "take_off.33" "take_on.09" "take_on.21" "take_out.11"
  "take_out.26" "take_out.27" "take_out.28" "take_over.12" "take_up.13"
  "take_up.30" "take_up.31" "take_aback.20" "take_down.22" "take_hold.24"
  "taking.29"))

Also note that for lemma have the light verb sense should be have.06, right?

I am assuming the frame files are outdated, am I right?