[developers] Additions to the Simple MRS format

Tue Aug 26 14:03:38 CEST 2014

Thanks, Mike.  Regarding LTOP and TOP, I can't think of a scenario where
both would need to be specified.  As for ICONS, that also looks good,
though the "target relation clause" terminology is rather
information-structure specific.  If that terminology is needed anywhere, we
should probably generalize to that it applies equally to e.g. coreference
constraints.

On Wed, Aug 20, 2014 at 4:12 AM, Michael Wayne Goodman <
goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:

> I forgot to mention the addition of ICONS. It's already been
> implemented (in ACE, at least), but it would be useful to define it as
> part of the new format. It looks much like an HCONS list:
>
> ICONS: < ... >
>
> And the items on the list take the form:
>
> target relation clause
>
> ... where target and clause are individual variables (i, e, or x), and
> don't necessarily need to be linked to EPs in the MRS (i.e. it can be
> an unbound "i" variable for a dropped argument). The set of relations
> is not fixed, as with HCONS, but defined by the grammar.
>
> For example, in Japanese you may have a question 犬が何をした？ "What did the
> dog do?", with a response 吠えた "Barked." with a dropped subject. The
> MRS representing the response with the dropped subject as the topic
> and the verb as the focus might be:
>
> [ TOP: h0
>   INDEX: e2 [ e TENSE: past MOOD: indicative PROG: - PERF: - ASPECT:
> default_aspect PASS: - SF: prop ]
>   RELS: < [ "_hoeru_v_1_rel"<0:2> LBL: h1 ARG0: e2 ARG1: i3 ] >
>   HCONS: < h0 qeq h1 >
>   ICONS: < i3 topic e2 e2 focus e2 > ]
>
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 1:42 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman
> <goodmami at u.washington.edu> wrote:
> > Hello all,
> >
> > It was noted in Tomar that the Simple MRS format lacked some
> > attributes that are present in the XML format, and that these
> > attributes can be useful for users of MRS. The attributes are:
> >
> >   * A Lnk value (e.g. <cfrom:cto>) for the whole MRS
> >   * "surface" on the top level of the MRS
> >   * "surface" on the EPs
> >
> > Stephan, Ann, Glenn, Woodley, and myself---developers of software that
> > produce Simple MRS (forgive me if I've left someone out)---have
> > discussed how to add these to the format, and we have come up with a
> > way to represent them matching the aesthetics of the original format
> > and, more importantly, maintaining backwards compatibility (by making
> > the additions optional and by not outputting them if the data is not
> > specified).
> >
> > We also agreed to make a (long overdue) change so that "LTOP" becomes
> > "TOP", since in full utterances the thing currently called LTOP is in
> > fact TOP (i.e. a global top, rather than local; this is further
> > discussed at the bottom of this email).
> >
> > Finally, we agreed to assign a version number to this updated format
> > (e.g. v1.1, where the currently used format is v1.0), so that
> > processors can, in theory, input and output MRSs compliant with either
> > format.
> >
> > While the implementation details were discussed off-list, we want to
> > bring the discussion to developers at delph-in.net (as we agreed to do in
> > Tomar), so that others have a chance to see and comment on the
> > proposal.
> >
> > Here is an example MRS in the new format:
> >
> > [ <0:41> "I am sure I shall say nothing of the kind."
> >   TOP: h0
> >   INDEX: e2 [ e SF: prop TENSE: pres MOOD: indicative PROG: - PERF: - ]
> >   RELS: < [ pron_rel<0:1> "I" LBL: h4 ARG0: x3 [ x PERS: 1 NUM: sg
> > PRONTYPE: std_pron ] ]
> >           [ pronoun_q_rel<0:1> LBL: h5 ARG0: x3 RSTR: h6 BODY: h7 ]
> >           [ "_sure_a_of_rel"<5:9> "sure" LBL: h1 ARG0: e2 ARG1: x3 ARG2:
> h8 ]
> >           [ pron_rel<15:16> "I" LBL: h9 ARG0: x10 [ x PERS: 1 NUM: sg
> > PRONTYPE: std_pron ] ]
> >           [ pronoun_q_rel<15:16> LBL: h11 ARG0: x10 RSTR: h12 BODY: h13 ]
> >           [ "_say_v_1_rel"<23:26> "say" LBL: h14 ARG0: e15 [ e SF:
> > prop TENSE: fut MOOD: indicative PROG: - PERF: - ] ARG1: x10 ARG2: x16
> > [ x PERS: 3 NUM: sg ] ]
> >           [ thing_rel<27:34> "nothing" LBL: h17 ARG0: x16 ]
> >           [ _no_q_rel<27:34> "nothing" LBL: h18 ARG0: x16 RSTR: h19
> BODY: h20 ]
> >           [ _of_p_rel<35:37> "of" LBL: h17 ARG0: e21 [ e SF: prop ]
> > ARG1: x16 ARG2: x22 [ x PERS: 3 NUM: sg IND: + ] ]
> >           [ _the_q_rel<38:41> "the" LBL: h23 ARG0: x22 RSTR: h24 BODY:
> h25 ]
> >           [ "_kind_n_of-n_rel"<42:47> "kind" LBL: h26 ARG0: x22 ARG1:
> i27 ] >
> >   HCONS: < h0 qeq h1 h6 qeq h4 h8 qeq h14 h12 qeq h9 h19 qeq h17 h24 qeq
> h26 > ]
> >
> > (I made up the surface values for illustration, so in practice they
> > may differ, but the formatting will remain the same.)
> >
> > We also want to hear how your grammars deal with the TOP variable. In
> > general, I think, the (actual) LTOP is equated with the top handle of
> > a local structure, but when a full utterance is produced, the TOP (or
> > GTOP, in Matrix-derived grammars) is QEQ'd to the handle (i.e. GTOP
> > qeq LTOP), but this might not be true for all grammars. In particular,
> > we'd like to know if it's ever necessary to have both TOP *and* LTOP
> > representable in an MRS.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > --
> > -Michael Wayne Goodman
>
>
>
> --
> -Michael Wayne Goodman
>
>

-- 
Emily M. Bender
Associate Professor
Department of Linguistics
Check out CLMS on facebook! http://www.facebook.com/uwclma
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20140826/d3f4d5e4/attachment.html>