<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=utf-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
Hmm - I think what this points out generally is that we should be
clear about the status of the configuration files and provide a
mechanism for exporting relevant values for use by code such as
pyDelphin (since it doesn't have the same direct access as the Lisp
code etc). So it would maybe make sense to export this sort of
configuration as part of the SEM-I?<br>
<br>
In terms of reliable signal for this specific case, yes, I would use
"RSTR". Because of the way the type system operates, I think it
unlikely there will be a problem of grammar writers accidentally
also using it for things other than quantifiers. There's no real
point trying to make _q_rel work as identification instead because
the code anyway needs to know the quantifiers' feature names in some
contexts. RSTR should be added to the mrsglobal file - I'll do
that.<br>
<br>
Ann<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 01/01/2016 01:56, Michael Wayne
Goodman wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGXBFArQrx4r3CrWXawNK6DFQsRj5xDb9bUqk85wARjJ7LZt3g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>(This discussion was started on the "predicate naming in
MRS" thread.)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>On Thu, Dec 31, 2015 at 11:39 AM Ann Copestake <<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk"><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk">aac10@cl.cam.ac.uk</a></a>>
wrote:</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">quantifiers are treated
specially in the MRS Lisp code and that actually predates
the tripartite structure. But e.g., my scoping code does
not rely on the _q_rel but uses the presence of a feature
which is specifiable by the grammar writer and defaults to
BODY. Or a grammar writer can define a list of
quantifiers. Incidentally, you can check stuff like this by
looking at the mrsglobals.lisp file, which has some
documentation.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Checking for POS=="q" did seem fragile to me, especially
because of the gpreds-don't-officially-have-pos issue. But I'm
not certain that these solutions are much better, from my
point of view; namely, pyDelphin needs to be able to detect
the quantifiers in a *MRS without knowing anything about the
grammar. Anyway, let's iterate some ways to detect
quantifiers:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. Check for a POS of "q"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This is merely conventional and not a formal part of *MRS,
but seems to be a well-respected convention.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>2. Look for a scope feature (e.g. BODY)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Treating BODY as the conventional scope feature is about
the same as (1), but to be accurate more generally it requires
per-grammar configuration (e.g., parsing grammar files like
mrsglobals.lisp). Also, DMRS doesn't use BODY, but instead
RSTR, to indicate quantifier relationships (is RSTR thus a
better choice for the scope feature?).<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>3. Check a list of quantifiers (e.g. in a SEM-I file)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This isn't so bad, but then there's a burden on the grammar
developers to keep their SEM-I files up-to-date. Also, those
files would ideally be distributed with, e.g., a deepbank,
separate from the grammar.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>4. Look at the structure: in MRS, a quantifier has an HCONS
relation that selects a label shared by EPs where the ARG0 of
one EP from that set is the bound variable of the quantifier.
In DMRS, a quantifier has a RSTR/H link to the quantifiee.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This seems the most reliable in the absence of per-grammar
configurations, but is relatively expensive to compute.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In general, I see the requirement for per-grammar
configurations in order to analyze the semantic output as a
barrier-to-entry for non-DELPH-INites (or for anyone, really,
if they just want to do stuff with the semantics). For this
reason I somewhat disprefer (2) and (3), even if they are
better solutions.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I guess my question is this: would checking for the RSTR
feature be a more reliable heuristic for detecting
quantifiers? If grammars consistently use it always and only
for quantifiers, then it seems a better choice than BODY.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>