[developers] SEM-I question: properties on 'i' variables

[Stephan Oepen]

hi mike,

> Perhaps something in the grammar could be
> more tightly constrained so the SEM-I generation code doesn't enumerate
> apparent redundancies such as the following?
>
>      def_explicit_q : ARG0 x { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY h.
>      def_implicit_q : ARG0 i { NUM sg }, RSTR h, BODY h.

why do you think either of the above are redundant?  i agree with you
(and dan) that it is surprising to see the NUM property on a variable
of type ‘i’, given the current state of the ‘variables’ section in
‘erg.smi’.  but the fact that these two predicates constrain their
ARG0s to a specific NUM value seems the opposite of redundant to me;
it is essential information for example to the provider of an input
semantics for generation and could in principle form the basis of
rejecting generator inputs upfront where they carry an incompatible
value (plural, in this case).

best, oe