[developers] What does it mean in ACE for a predicate to be 'covered' in generation?

[Michael Wayne Goodman]

Thanks Woodley,

On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Woodley Packard <sweaglesw at sweaglesw.org>
wrote:

> Hi Mike,
>
> An EP is covered if a grammar entity (lexeme or rule) can be found that
> supplies that EP while not introducing any other EPs that can't be
> reconciled to the input semantics.  So possibly what you are observing is
> that while place_n and time_n exist in the grammar (and SEM-I), if memory
> serves, every way to introduce them also introduces some other EP, e.g
> "when" is which_q time_n I think.  In this situation, if which_q were not
> in the input then "when" would not be activated, so time_n would risk being
> not covered (although there are other combinations that can cover it too).
>
> Might this be consistent with your experience?
>

Yes, that makes sense, and mostly fits what I'm seeing. Some other
predicates that ACE says aren't covered (I have a partial list of things
that are "not covered" here: https://github.com/delph-in/JaEn/issues/3) are
the ones that go along with, e.g., time_n or place_n, such as _soon_p and
_here_a_1, so I'll have to figure out why (i'm assuming) my automatically
extracted transfer rules are not putting them together in a way that
ACE+ERG can make sense of.


> Woodley
>
>
>
> > On Dec 12, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman <goodmami at uw.edu>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Developers,
> >
> > I'm trying to generate with the ERG and ACE from semantics transfered
> from Jacy via JaEn. I'm finding that the JaEn grammar has gone stale in
> parts compared to the predicates used in the current Jacy and ERG (e.g.,
> coord vs coord_c in Jacy, and _good_a_at-for_rel vs _good_a_at-for-of_rel
> in the ERG). I'm updating those that are simple (like the above). Some
> predicates, however, appear to be valid already, but ACE still gives me
> messages like this:
> >
> >     WARNING: EP 'time_n' is not covered
> >     NOTE: EP 'time_n' is unknown in the semantic index
> >
> > time_n does in fact exist in the SEM-I (in etc/abstract.smi), although
> it is also on the "block" list of etc/patches.lisp. Another example is
> place_n, which occurs in etc/abstract.smi and is not blocked, but I get a
> similar message from ACE.
> >
> > How does ACE determine if a predicate is covered or not?
> >
> > --
> > Michael Wayne Goodman
> > Ph.D. Candidate, UW Linguistics
>



-- 
Michael Wayne Goodman
Ph.D. Candidate, UW Linguistics
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.delph-in.net/archives/developers/attachments/20171212/7a3d1042/attachment.html>