<div dir="ltr">Thanks for the explanation, Dan,<br><div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 21, 2017 at 2:24 AM, Dan Flickinger <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:danf@stanford.edu" target="_blank">danf@stanford.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> <div dir="ltr"> <div id="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir="ltr"> <p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">Hi Mike,</p> <p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"><br> </p> <p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0">In looking at the github list of ERG predicates not covered, almost all of them look like instances of what Woodley described, where there is a lexical entry that introduces multiple EPs (such as `here' or `now'), and where the Ja-En transfer rules apparently are not getting that nontrivial collection of EPs described exactly right in order to satisfy the generator's lexical lookup.</p></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I fixed (in JaEn) a handful of them that were single outdated predicates. In order to get the multi-EP ones I have a few ideas, but I probably won't have time to implement them before my defense. At the least, I could make sure JaEn has hand-written rules for the closed class ones, but I have to then also prevent the automatic rules from doing a preemptive strike on those predicates and thus making them unavailable to the hand-rules (maybe by applying these hand-rules first, i.e., a pre-preemptive-strike-strike).<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div id="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir="ltr"><p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"> One element in particular that might have changed in recent memory is that the ERG pays a little more attention now to the variable properties of the ARG0 for the locative EP introduced by `here' and `now', so the generator trigger rules can (for efficiency) only introduce the semantically empty copula `be' when these guys are to be used predicatively, as in "people are here". The Ja-En transfer rules might not be getting that ARG0 quite right, maybe.</p> </div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'm not doing anything with variable properties, so I might have to just take a hit here.<br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div id="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409divtagdefaultwrapper" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;font-family:Calibri,Helvetica,sans-serif" dir="ltr"> <p style="margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0"> Dan<br> </p> <br> <div style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> <hr style="display:inline-block;width:98%"> <div id="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409divRplyFwdMsg" dir="ltr"><font style="font-size:11pt" color="#000000" face="Calibri, sans-serif"><b>From:</b> <a href="mailto:developers-bounces@emmtee.net" target="_blank">developers-bounces@emmtee.net</a> <<a href="mailto:developers-bounces@emmtee.net" target="_blank">developers-bounces@emmtee.net</a><wbr>> on behalf of Michael Wayne Goodman <<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>><br> <b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, December 12, 2017 11:04 PM<br> <b>To:</b> Woodley Packard<br> <b>Cc:</b> developers<br> <b>Subject:</b> Re: [developers] What does it mean in ACE for a predicate to be 'covered' in generation?</font> <div> </div> </div><div><div class="m_-6225145772814708228h5"> <div> <div dir="ltr">Thanks Woodley,<br> <div> <div class="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409x_gmail_extra"><br> <div>On Tue, Dec 12, 2017 at 9:43 PM, Woodley Packard <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sweaglesw@sweaglesw.org" target="_blank">sweaglesw@sweaglesw.org</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409x_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Hi Mike,<br> <br> 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).<br> <br> Might this be consistent with your experience?<span class="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409x_gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br> </font></span></blockquote> <div><br> </div> <div>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: <a href="https://github.com/delph-in/JaEn/issues/3" target="_blank">https://github.com/delph-in/Ja<wbr>En/issues/3</a>) 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.</div> </div> <div class="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409x_gmail_quote"> <div> </div> <blockquote class="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409x_gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <span class="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409x_gmail-HOEnZb"><font color="#888888">Woodley<br> </font></span> <div class="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409x_gmail-HOEnZb"> <div class="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409x_gmail-h5"><br> <br> <br> > On Dec 12, 2017, at 7:21 PM, Michael Wayne Goodman <<a href="mailto:goodmami@uw.edu" target="_blank">goodmami@uw.edu</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > Hi Developers,<br> ><br> > 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:<br> ><br> > WARNING: EP 'time_n' is not covered<br> > NOTE: EP 'time_n' is unknown in the semantic index<br> ><br> > 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.<br> ><br> > How does ACE determine if a predicate is covered or not?<br> ><br> > --<br> > Michael Wayne Goodman<br> > Ph.D. Candidate, UW Linguistics<br> </div> </div> </blockquote> </div> <br> <br clear="all"> <br> -- <br> <div class="m_-6225145772814708228m_-5403967755098454409x_gmail_signature"> <div dir="ltr">Michael Wayne Goodman <div>Ph.D. Candidate, UW Linguistics</div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div> </div></div></div> </div> </div> </blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="m_-6225145772814708228gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr">Michael Wayne Goodman<div>Ph.D. Candidate, UW Linguistics</div></div></div> </div></div></div>