From 82ed9183dcc21fa247d3b959534f9d3e2a3509e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Chiarcos Date: Fri, 22 Nov 2024 22:37:57 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] top and system restored --- modularized/Readme.md | 5 +- modularized/discourse.owl | 6340 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ modularized/olia-top.owl | 868 +++++ modularized/system.owl | 231 ++ 4 files changed, 7442 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) create mode 100644 modularized/discourse.owl create mode 100644 modularized/olia-top.owl create mode 100644 modularized/system.owl diff --git a/modularized/Readme.md b/modularized/Readme.md index 6a23853..21c8c43 100644 --- a/modularized/Readme.md +++ b/modularized/Readme.md @@ -8,8 +8,9 @@ The idea is to provide multiple independent ontologies for different components - [x] validate - `discourse.owl` -> `../owl/olia.owl` - [x] move from experimental into reference model, but see [../owl/experimental/discourse](../owl/experimental/discourse) for accompanying files - - [ ] add `LinguisticConcept/DiscourseEntity` - - [ ] add `LinguisticConcept/DiscourseFeature` + - [x] add `LinguisticConcept/DiscourseEntity` + - [x] add `LinguisticConcept/DiscourseFeature` + - [ ] for all experimental features link as owl:sameAs with new URIs, mark the old ones as deprecated - [ ] validate - `morphosyntax.owl` -> `../owl/core/olia.owl` - [x] `LinguisticConcept/MorphosyntacticFeature` diff --git a/modularized/discourse.owl b/modularized/discourse.owl new file mode 100644 index 0000000..120f565 --- /dev/null +++ b/modularized/discourse.owl @@ -0,0 +1,6340 @@ + + + + OLiA ontology for discourse annotation, i.e. + - discourse relations (coherence relations) + - discourse structure + - coreference and bridging + - information structure + + This ontology does not extend to + - lexical semantics (covered by extensive specialized vocabularies, e.g., WordNet, FrameNet, for which RDF instantiations already exist) + - semantic roles (covered covered by specialized vocabularies, e.g., FrameNet, for which RDF instantiations already exist) + - implicit semantic roles (do not require a specialized vocabulary, this is merely the intersentential application of semantic roles) + - dialog acts (yet to come) + - speech acts (yet to come) + - syntax, morphosyntax, morphology (OLiA Reference Model) + - SDRT (annotated corpora for SDRT are currently in preparation, but not yet available. SDRT is thus not considered here.) + + Selected References for Information Structure: + - Caroline Féry, Gisbert Fanselow and Manfred Krifka (2007), Introduction, in: Féry C., G. Fanselow and M. Krifka (eds.), Interdisciplinary Studies on Information Structure 6: The Notions of Information Structure, p. 1–12 + - Tom Güldemann, Ines Fiedler, Yukiko Morimoto, Kirill Prokhorov (2010), Preposed verb doubling and predicate-centered focus. paper presented at the International Conference of the SFB 632 "Information Structure", July 9th, 2010 + + References for Discourse Structure + - annotation scheme of the RST Discourse Treebank (RSTDTB, Carlson and Marcu 2001) and general RST documentation (Mann and Thompson 1988, Mann and Taboada 2010) + - annotation scheme of the Penn Discourse Treebank (PDTB, Prasad et al. 2007) and its adaptions for Hindi (Oza et al. 2009, HDRB), Italian (Tonelli et al. 2010, LUNA) and Arabic (Al-Saif and Markert 2010, LADTB) + - annotation scheme of the Penn Discourse Graphbank (Wolf et al. 2003, http://www.ldc.upenn.edu/Catalog/docs/LDC2005T08/database-documentation.pdf) + - Harry Bunt and Rashmi Prasad, ISO DR-Core (ISO 24617-8): Core Concepts for the Annotation of Discourse Relations, paper presented at ISA-12 (Note: the original ISO documentation must not be republished, so we ground all our efforts on this summary.) + + Ch. Chiarcos, christian.chiarcos@web.de + olia-is.owl (until 2014-03-20): + 2008-05-23 created, for information structure and coreference only + 2010-07-09 extended with respect to Féry et al. (2007) + 2010-07-09 subclasses of predicate-centered focus introduced in accordance with Güldemann et al. (2010) + 2010-10-14 subclassification of Focus and StructuralFocusType modified as suggested by Ines Fiedler (pers. comm.) + 2012-02-10 Sourceforge commit + 2014-03-20 merged with olia_discourse.owl, see there + + olia_discourse.owl: + 2010-05-21 created, for discourse relations and discourse structure only + 2010-05-21 RST + 2010-05-26 PDTB, RST revised + 2010-05-27 PDGB + 2010-05-28 PDTB-derived schemes + 2010-05-30 first version + 2012-02-10 Sourceforge commit + 2014-03-20 merged with olia-is.owl + 2014-03-20 *Category to *Unit, TextOrganizationalUnit to TextStructuralUnit + 2014-03-21 DiscourseFunction, hasDiscourseFunction, PresentationalRelation, SubjectMatterRelation, EntityTypes, RelationCue + 2021-07-27 ISO discourse relations (integration primarily based on their PDTB mapping), annotation property inverseOf. Some restructuring. + 2021-10-11 minor adjustments for OWL validation + 2021-10-26 TopicContinuityRelation redefined as subclass of Expansion. This is based on the treatment of Progression in C-TED (where a novel subclass EXPANSION.Progression has been introduced). + 2021-11-30 Extensions and refinement for the SemDok ontology. The ontology is part of a discourse parser. Although this is no longer available, it provides an insightful model of RST-based ontology modelling of discourse relations. For SemDok, cf. Bärenfänger, M., Lüngen, H., Hilbert, M., & Lobin, H. (2010). The role of logical and generic document structure in relational discourse analysis. Kühnlein, Peter/Benz, Anton/Sidner, Candace L.: Constraints in discourse, 2, 81-104. + 2022-05-23 rdfs:labels added (automatically) + 2022-07-22 OWL validation + 2022-10-13 EntityType classification extended to common NER schemes (based on NERD ontology) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + if two asymmetric discourse relations are equivalent in their definition and differ only in their nuclearity, they should be connected by this relation. This is used systematically to capture the dependencies between argument roles in ISO. + inverse of + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Relation between linguistic expressions and their semantic content. + denotates + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + has attribution source + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + has bridging type + + + + + + + + + has definiteness + + + + + + + + + + + has discourse function + + + + + + + + + + + has discourse structural pattern + + + + + + + + + has entity type + + + + + + + + + has factuality + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Relation between discourse referents and information status, and (mediated by the denotates relationship) between referring expressions and information status. + has information status + + + + + + + + + has polarity + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Relation between discourse entities and pragmatic features, and (mediated by the denotates relationship) between markables and pragmatic features. + has pragmatic feature + + + + + + + + + has referentiality + + + + + + + + has semantic feature + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + has source + + + + + + + + + + + has structural focus type + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + has target + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + The entity that an utterance is construed about. (Reinhart 1982, Lambrecht 1994) + aboutness topic + + + + + + + + + When a separate section of a document contains an abstract or summary of the +document, this schema should be used. If, within the text of the article, a sentence or paragraph +adequately summarizes the document, then the relation SUMMARY-S or SUMMARY-N should be +selected. The schema ABSTRACT is reserved for a summary which is separate from the body of the +text itself. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + abstract + + + + + + + + + Categories specified for referring expressions (Poesio & Artstein 2006): Abstract, Animate, Concrete, Person, Plan, Space, Time + +It is not quite clear how Poesio and Artstein defined the category, but we assume that is applies to situations rather than entities proper. According, nerd:Event is assumed to be a sub-class. + abstract entity + + + + + + + + + A referent is accessible if it has not been previously mentioned, but the hearer has a representation of the referent at the moment the referring expression is encountered. (Prince 1988: "discourse-new, but hearer old") + accessible + + + + + + + + + + ISO Manner is an asymmetric discourse relation in which the means (Arg1) is a way in which the achievement (Arg2) comes about or occurs. + +Corresponds to ISO Manner with argument achievement. Nucleus is the means. + achievement + + + + + + + + + A referent is active if it belongs to a small group of given referents which are particularly salient ("in the focus/center of attention"), typically indicated by pronouns (Chafe 1976, cf. Gundel et al. 1993 "in focus", Levelt 1989 "in focus"). + active + + + + + + + + + introduced as a generalization over various NERD "products" that denote different forms of or are parts of an address. + + + + + + + + + for nerd:AdministrativeRegion + administrative division + gouvernmental jurisdiction + administrative region + + + + + + + + + Narrow focus on an adverbial. (Fiedler) + adverbial focus + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Aircraft + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Airline, classified as Company here, but in NERD a subclass of Organozation + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Airport + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Album sub nerd:Product + + + + + + + + + The connective indicates that its two arguments denote alternative situations. (Prasad et al. 2007) + alternative + + + + + + + + + Alternative lexicalization: a discourse relation is inferred, but insertion of an +Implicit connective leads to redundancy in its expression due to the relation being alternatively +lexicalized by some other expression. + +These are cases where a discourse relation is inferred between adjacent sentences but where providing +an Implicit connective leads to redundancy in the expression of the relation. This is because the +relation is alternatively lexicalized by some “non-connective expression”. Such expressions include +(1) those which have two parts, one referring to the relation and another anaphorically to Arg1; (2) +those which have just one part referring anaphorically to Arg1; (3) those which have just one part +referring to the relation. + alternative lexicalization + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Ambassador, originally sub Person, here sub Politician; cf. extractic:AMBASSADOR + + + + + + + + + for NERD core class Amount + + + + + + + + + In an ANALOGY relation, two textual spans, often quite dissimilar, are set in correspondence in some respects. An analogy contains an inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects, they will probably agree in other respects. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + analogy (RST) + + + + + + + + + anaphoric relation + + + + + + + + + for NERD core class Animal + + + + + + + + + animate entity + + + + + + + + AnnotationUnit was introduced to account for annotating strings (selected according to certain criteria) directly with discourse information. Where structured elements (e.g., from syntax or semantics) represent the basis of annotation, the annotations should be directly anchored with them. + +Here, we are concerned with discourse annotation only. Syntactically or semantically defined units of annotations are thus considered opaque objects, as these are to be described in terms of the OLiA Reference Model. + annotation unit + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + RST: The situation presented in the nucleus comes in contrast with the situation presented in the satellite. The contrast may happen in only one or few respects, while everything else can remain the same in other respects. An ANTITHESIS relation is +always mononuclear -- it is a contrastive relation that distinguishes clearly between the nuclearity of its arguments. It differs from the mononuclear CONCESSION relation, which is characterized by a violated expectation. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +Markers are "although", "however", and "while". + +Axiomatization follows SemDok + antithesis + antithesis + Supersedes Antithesis_RST. Also used in SemDok. + + + + + + + + + superseded by Antithesis, maintained only for backward-compatibility. + antithesis (RST) + true + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Architect. As this is not supported by an external extractor, it is deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + introduced as generalization over nerd:Space subclasses that describe buildings, groups of buldings or functional spaces within cities (e.g., park, which results from landscape architecture). Unlike GeographicalFeatures (which are mostly natural) and PoliticalUnits (which are abstract), architectural features result from manual construction efforts. Note that we include roads (as a result of planned human activity, and often, construction, but not channels (all waterways are considered geographical; a channel is a natural body of water that is only redirected by means of a manual construction). + + + + + + + + + Narrow focus on one single non-verbal constituent in the focus. +Corresponding to "narrow focus" (van Valin & Lapolla 1997), or "argument focus" (Lambrecht 1994). "Term focus" as suggested by Güldemann & Fiedler would be more precise (adverbials also fall in this group, but no verbs). + argument focus + + + + + + + + + cf. SemDok ArticleTopLevelSchema + article top level schema + article top-level schema + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Artist, zemanata:artist + + + + + + + + + Assertion proposition AOs are associated with a communication type of attribution (“Comm” for short), conveyed by standard verbs of communication (Levin, 1993) such as say, mention, claim, argue, explain etc. +(Prasad et al. 2007) + assertion + + + + + + + + + Assessment is introduced here as a generalization over RST relations like COMMENT, EVALUATION, INTERPRETATION etc. where a subjective, objective or neutral assessment of the information represented in the nucleus is expressed in the satellite. (Ch. Chiarcos) + +It corresponds to SemDok InterpretativeEvaluation, except that assessment is underspecified with respect to nuclearity whereas . + assessment + interpretative evaluation + assessment + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Astronaut. As this is not supported by an external extractor, it is deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + The situations described in the two arguments are temporally ordered. (Prasad et al. 2007) + asynchronous relation + temporal sequence + + + + + + + + + introduced as generalization over nerd:SoccerPlayer, nerd:TennisPlayer. As these are, however, not supported by an external extractor, it is deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + The relation of attribution is a relation of “ownership” between abstract objects and individuals +or agents. That is, attribution has to do with ascribing beliefs and assertions expressed in text to +the agent(s) holding or making them (Riloff and Wiebe, 2003; Wiebe et al., 2004, 2005). +(Prasad et al. 2007) + +Instances of reported speech, both direct and indirect, should be marked for +the rhetorical relation of ATTRIBUTION. The satellite is the source of the attribution (a clause con- +taining a reporting verb, or a phrase beginning with according to), and the nucleus is the content +of the reported message (which must be in a separate clause). The ATTRIBUTION relation is also +used with cognitive predicates, to include feelings, thoughts, hopes, etc. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +The Satellite attributes the Nucleus to a source. +(Wolf et al. 2003) + +Note that SemDok groups Attribution and Citation with Support and thus not a textual, but a presentational relation. However, we adopt the PDTB perspective in that attribution is to be modelled separately, and in accordance with its usage in text, consider it a textual device rather than a presentational relation. + +cf. SemDok Attribution + attribution + + + + + + + + + Classification of Attribute relations with respect to different types of agents that act as source of Attribution. (Prasad et al. 2007) + attribution source + + + + + + + + + Most of the time, the WSJ articles in our corpus did not include title and +author information. However, in a small number of cases, a line about the author was included at +the end of the text. In such cases, the schema Author was used to link this with the rest of the text. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + author + + + + + + + + + Source is writer of text (Prasad et al. 2007) + author attribution source + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Automobile + automobile model + automobile + + + + + + + + + + EXPANSION.Background applies when the argument that is syntactically associated with the connective describes prior eventualities which are background information of the other argument. (Al-Saif and Markert 2010) + +cf. RST Background: In a BACKGROUND relation, the satellite establishes the context or the grounds with respect to which the nucleus is to be interpreted. Understanding the satellite helps the reader understand the nucleus. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +We follow SemDok in assuming that Background is an interpersonal (presentational) relation. + background + + + + + + + + + In a BACKGROUND relation, the satellite establishes the context or the grounds +with respect to which the nucleus is to be interpreted. Understanding the satellite helps the reader +understand the nucleus. The satellite IS NOT the cause/reason/motivation of the situation pre- +sented in the nucleus. The reader/writer intentions are irrelevant in determining whether such a +relation holds. In contrast with the CIRCUMSTANCE relation, the information or the context of the +BACKGROUND relation is not always specified clearly or delimited sharply. Hence, the CIRCUM- +STANCE relation is stronger than BACKGROUND. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +Equivalent to SemDok Background. The superclass Background is more generic than the SemDok class in that it also covers the SemDok class Preparation. However, SemDoc concepts are undefined, so details are hard to make out. + background (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Band + music group + band + + + + + + + + + Belief proposition AOs are associated with a “belief” type of attribution, conveyed by propositional attitude verbs (Hintikka, 1971) such as believe, think, expect, suppose, imagine, etc. +(Prasad et al. 2007, for PDTB) + belief + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Bird and extractiv:BIRD + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Book sub nerd;Product + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Bridge + + + + + + + + + cf. SemDok BridgingRelation + bridging relation + bridging relation + + + + + + + + + Types of textual inference, presupposes Inferrable InformationStatus + bridging type + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Broadcast sub nerd:Organization + +Note: As there is no definition given, it is not fully clear what this is supposed to mean. I assume this means Broadcast*er*, not the Broadcast itself, but if so, RatioStation and TVStation should be sub-classes. Because of the unclear semantics and the lack of a link within NERD, this is marked as deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + Generalization over nerd:TVStation and nerd:RadioStation. nerd:Broadcast may have meant the same, but it has unclear semantics in NERD. + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Canal + + + + + + + + + As the semantics/pragmatics differentiation of PDTB relations does not exactly correspond to the subject-matter/presentational distinction in RST, Cause is introduced as a generalization over SemanticCause and PragmaticCause. + +This generalization is in line with (and inspired by) the ISO Core DRels (Bunt and Prasad, ISA-12). + cause + + + + + + + + + PDTB "Result": The situation in Arg2 is the effect brought about by the situation described in Arg1. (Prasad et al. 2007) + cause precedes effect (PDTB) + result + + + + + + + + + + + This is a causal relation in which two EDUs, one representing the cause and the other representing the result, are of equal importance or weight. The multinuclear relations CAUSE-RESULT and CONSEQUENCE are similar. The former should be selected when the causality is perceived as being more direct, while the latter is reserved for a more indirect causal connection. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +Corresponds to SemDok CauseResult-multi + cause result (RST) + + + + + + + + + + RST "CAUSE": The situation presented in the nucleus is the cause of the situation presented in +the satellite. The cause, which is the nucleus, is the most important part. The satellite represents +the result of the action. The intention of the writer is to emphasize the cause. When the result is +the nucleus, the mononuclear relation RESULT should be selected. When it is not clear whether the +cause or result is more important, select the multinuclear relation CAUSE-RESULT. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + cause (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Celebrity. As this is not supported by an external extractor, it is deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + The connective indicates that two alternatives are evoked in the discourse but only one is taken. (Prasad et al. 2007) + chosen alternative (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + + + The situation presented in the satellite provides the context in which the situation presented in the nucleus should be interpreted. The satellite IS NOT the cause/reason/motivation of the situation presented in the nucleus. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) +S is not unrealized; S sets a framework in the subject matter within which R is intended to interpret N (Mann and Taboada 2010) + +Note that this is not an RST-specific relation because of its use in SemDok. Axiomatization follows SemDok + circumstance + Defined as a SynchronousRelation because of its association with the discourse marker "while", cf. Prasad et al. (2007) + + + + + + + + + superseded by Circumstance, maintained for backward compatibility + circumstance (RST) + circumstance (RST) + true + + + + + + + + + introduced for SemDok Citation. However, we consider Citation not as a rhetorical relation, but as a structural element in the text that can serve different purposes (discourse relations). These purposes correspond to the subclasses of Citation in SemDok, and these subclasses are thus in the intersection between OLiA Citation and the discourse relation that corresponds to their respective function, + citation + + + + + + + + + + cf. SemDok Citation-attribution + citation attribution + citation/attribution + + + + + + + + + + cf. SemDok Citation-evidence + citation evidence + citation/evidence + + + + + + + + + + SemDok Citation-self, subclass of Support + citation self + citation/self + + + + + + + + + for nerd:City + + + + + + + + + + + CoherenceRelation is used here as a synonym of PDTB "coherence relation". RST "discourse relation", however, is broader. + coherence relation + coherence relation + + + + + + + + + This schema refers to the name of a regularly featured column in the paper, +and should be used when the paper begins by presenting a TITLE, COLUMN-TITLE and AUTHOR. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + column title + + + + + + + + + for nerd:ComicsCharacter. As this is not supported by an external extractor, it is deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + introduced in analogy with TopicComment as generalization over CommentTopic_RST + comment topic + + + + + + + + + + A specific remark is made on a topic or statement, after which the topic itself is identified. This relation is always multinuclear, as both spans are necessary to understand the context. When the spans occur in the reverse order, with the topic preceding the comment, the relation TOPIC-COMMENT is selected. While COMMENT-TOPIC is not a frequently used device in English, it is seen in news reporting, for example, when someone makes a statement, after which a reference is given to help the reader interpret the context of the statement. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + comment topic (RST) + + + + + + + + + In a COMMENT relation, the satellite constitutes a subjective remark on a previous segment of the text. It is not an evaluation or an interpretation. The comment is usually presented from a perspective that is outside of the elements in focus in the nucleus. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + comment (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Company + company name + company + + + + + + + + + The connective indicates that a discourse relation is established between Arg1 and Arg2 in order to highlight prominent differences between the two situations. Semantically, the truth of both arguments is independent of the connective or the established relation. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +cf. Resemblance (Wolf et al. 2003): Resemblance relations establish commonalities and contrasts between corresponding (sets of) discourse entities or properties (Kehler (2002)). Corresponding (sets of) discourse entities or +properties are usually syntactically and / or semantically parallel. + comparison + + + + + + + + + Two textual spans are compared along some dimension, which can be abstract. The relations can convey that some abstract entities that pertain to the comparison relation are similar, different, greater-than, less-than, etc. In the case of a comparison +relation, the spans, entities, etc. are not in contrast. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + comparison (RST) + + + + + + + + + from SemDok + +SemDok also defines three sub-classes: CDS-block, CDS-div, CDS-doc. It seems these refer to the structure of XML documents, and without definitions, these have not been adopted here. + complex discourse segment + complex discourse segment + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + One of the arguments describes a situation A which causes C, while the other asserts (or implies) the complement of C. +(Prasad et al. 2007) + +The situation indicated in the nucleus is contrary to expectation in the light of the information presented in the satellite. In other words, a CONCESSION relation is always characterized by a violated expectation. In some cases, which text span is the +satellite and which is the nucleus do not depend on the semantics of the spans, but rather on the intention of the writer. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +A typical marker is "although" (in PTDB and RSTDTB). + +Axiomatization follows SemDok Concession (subclass of Contrast). We follow SemDok in assuming that Concession is always hypotactic (mononuclear), although this is not explicit in the PDTB definitions. + concession + concession + violated expectation + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In a CONCLUSION relation, the satellite presents a final statement that wraps up the situation presented in the nucleus. A CONCLUSION satellite is a reasoned judgment, inference, necessary consequence, or final decision with respect to the situation presented in the nucleus. When the nucleus and satellite are of equal importance, select the multinuclear CONCLUSION. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + conclusion (RST) + + + + + + + + + Categories specified for referring expressions (Poesio & Artstein 2006): Abstract, Animate, Concrete, Person, Plan, Space, Time + concrete entity + + + + + + + + + Note that Condition is undefined with respect to nuclearity. Mononuclear relations are Consequence (condition is nucleus) and Pragmatic / Semantic Condition (condition is satellite). + +RST-DTB: In a CONDITION relation, the truth of the proposition associated with the nucleus is a consequence of the fulfillment of the condition in the satellite. The satellite presents a situation that is not realized. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +PDGB: the event described in the Nucleus can only take place if the event described in the Satellite also takes place (before or simultaneously with the event described in the Nucleus) +(Wolf et al. 2003) + +PDTB: As the semantics/pragmatics differentiation of PDTB relations does not exactly correspond to the subject-matter/presentational distinction in RST, Condition was originally introduced as a generalization over SemanticCondition and PragmaticCondition. Both SemanticCondition and PragmaticCondition take the condition to be the satellite. + +ISO: Condition and Negative Condition describe the relation between both arguments, the RST/PDTB/PDGB condition relations correspond to an ISO (Negative) Condition with argument (Negated) Antecedent. + condition + + + + + + + + + + The situation described in Arg2 provides additional, discourse new, information that is related to the situation described in Arg1. Typical connectives for “Conjunction” are also, in addition, additionally, further, etc. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +The items are conjoined to form a unit in which each item plays a comparable role. (Mann and Taboada 2010) + +We follow Bunt and Prasad (ISA-12) in assuming that (ISO) conjunction is a superclass of (PDTB) list. HOWEVER, in terms of the PDTB v2.0 definitions, both are more likely to be taken as sibling concepts. + conjunction + + + + + + + + + The connective indicates that both alternatives hold or are possible. (Prasad et al. 2007) + conjunctive (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + + ISO DR-Core: Condition or Negated Condition, argument Consequent + +This is an annotation that marks a condition at the consequent rather than the condition, itself. We expect such a relation to require both a consequent and a condition, and that the type of condition is marked at the condition rather at the consequent. Accordinly, Consequence does not have further subclasses, but should be coupled with Condition annotations. + +Axiomatization follows SemDok Consequence + consequence + consequence + consequent + + + + + + + + + In a consequence relation, the situation presented in one span is a consequence of the situation presented in the other span. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +SemDok distinguishes three subtypes, which, however, only differ in nuclearity. + consequence (RST) + consequence (RST) + + + + + + + + + The situations are (assumed to be) related by an abstract notion of recurrence or habituality (Carlson and Marcu 2001), often, one of the situations described in Arg1 and Arg2 causally influences the other. (Prasad et al. 2007). + +cf. Wolf et al.'s "Cause-Effect": Cause-Effect relations establish a causal inference path between discourse segments. + +Roughly corresponding to SemDok CauseResult. However, this is limited to ideational relations (subject-matter relations), whereas here, we follow PDTB to also include presentaitonal (interpersonal) relations (PragmaticCause). + cause-result + contigency + contingency + + + + + + + + + In a CONTINGENCY relation, the satellite suggests an abstract notion of recurrence or habituality. Hence, the expression of time, place, or condition is not the primary focus. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + contigency (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Continent + + + + + + + + + + PDTB COMPARISON/Concession/contra-expectation: Arg1 creates an expectation that Arg2 denies. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +ISO DR-Core: Concession, argument expectation-denier (Bunt & Prasad, ISA-12) + expectation denier + contra expectation + contra-expectation + contraexpectation + counterexpectation + + + + + + + + + The situations presented in the arguments come in contrast with each other along some dimension. The contrast may happen in only one or few respects, while everything else can remain the same in other respects. Typically, a CONTRAST relation includes a contrastive discourse cue, such as "but", "however", "while". (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +Distinguished from PDTB "Contrast" as a generalization over PDTB "Contrast" and "Pragmatic Contrast" (Ch. Chiarcos), This definition is in line with the ISO relation "Contrast" and corresponds to it notably in the exclusion of Concessions, + contrast + contrast + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In a CONTRAST relation, two or more nuclei come in contrast with each other along some dimension. The contrast may happen in only one or few respects, while everything else can remain the same in other respects. Typically, a CONTRAST relation includes a contrastive discourse cue, such as but, however, while, whereas a COMPARISON does not. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +No more than two nuclei; the situations in these two nuclei are (a) comprehended as the same in many respects (b) comprehended as differing in a few respects and (c) compared with respect to one or more of these differences (Mann and Taboada 2010). + +Corresponds to SemDok Contrast-multi + contrast + contrast (RST) + contrast (RST) + contrast (multi) + + + + + + + + + Generalization over RST/PDTB contrast and concession. + +Cf. Contrast as defined by Wolf et al. (2003): Infer a set of entities from DS0, E(DS0), and a set of entities from DS1, E(DS1). Then infer contrasts between members of E(DS0) and E(DS1). +• Contrast-1 is a contrast between corresponding predicates in DS0 and DS1. The +arguments of these contrasting predicates are identical. +• Contrast-2 is a contrast between the arguments of corresponding predicates in DS0 +and DS1. The predicates over these contrasting arguments are identical. + +Corresponds to SemDok Contrast (generalization over Concession, Antithesis and Contrast). + contrast + contrastive comparison + contrastive comparison + + + + + + + + + The contrastive focus (cf) is that element of the sentence that evokes a notion of contrast to (an element of) another utterance. (SFB632 guidelines) + +Contrastive focus may also extend over different domains of an utterance. In alternative questions and the answers to them it covers the whole CP. E.g. + +WORDS: Is it raining or not ? CFocus: [ _cf It is raining] or [ _cf not]. WORDS: Yes , it is . NFocus: Yes, [ _nf it is]. CFocus: Yes, [ _cf it is]. (5.3) + +Also referred to as "identificational focus", or "alternative focus". + contrastive focus + + + + + + + + + cf. SemDok List-coordination. No definition provided, but this could be meant for cases of (otherwise uninterpreted) syntactic coordination between discourse units. + coordination + coordination + list/coordination + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Country + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Criminal and extractiv:CRIMINAL + + + + + + + + + When a date is provided at the beginning of the document, and it refers to the +rest of the article, the DATE schema should be used. It may also be used for subsections of the +document. It should be linked to a TEXT or SECTIONTEXT schema. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + date + + + + + + + + + definite + + + + + + + + + (Semantic) definiteness means that an expression is morphosyntactically marked as hearer-known (definite or pronominal) and the hearer can infer exactly one entity to which this description applies at the current point in discourse, either because it is unique (Russel 1937), or it is the most salient entity in the current situation to which the referring expression may apply (Lewis 1979, v. Heusinger 1996). In particular, most pronuns are also definite as they refer to one particular antecedent. + definiteness + + + + + + + + + Introduced as generalization over Definition_RST and ElaborationDefinition (from SemDok). In fact, these may just be equivalent. + definition + + + + + + + + + In a DEFINITION relation, the satellite gives a definition of the nucleus. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + definition (RST) + + + + + + + + + Krifka distinguishes between ‘expression focus’ and ‘denotation focus.’ Differences in meaning are only found in the latter kind of focus, on which we concentrate here. + +... + +Some semantic uses of focus are focus-sensitive particles (socalled +‘association with focus’ cases), negations, reason clauses and restrictors of quantifiers. + +It is important to understand which subclasses of focus can be expressed by grammatical means, even if the distinction is only realized in a small group of languages. In the SFB annotation guidelines, ‘focus’ is subcategorized into new and contrastive. +(Féry et al. 2007) + denotation focus + + + + + + + + + Classification of Attribute relations with respect to their "determinacy", which signals a context that cancels what would otherwise be an entailment of attribution. +The determinacy feature captures the fact that the attribution over a relation or argument can itself be cancelled in particular contexts, such as within negated, conditional, and infinitive contexts. +Determinate contexts are simply marked by the default “Null”. (Prasad et al. 2007) + + determinate attribution + + + + + + + + + + added as generalization over ISO FunctionalDependence (response from one interlocutor) and FeedbackDependence (questions, answers and meta communication). Extended to quasi-dialoguous relations (rhetorical questions). +Note that PDTB, CCR and RST don't cover dialogue acts. + +Likewise, SemDok doesn't address dialogs. However, dialog relations clearly have an interpersonal function. Because of the modelling of dialog relations as interpersonal, this entails that they are presentational. + dialog relation + + + + + + + + + adopted from SemDok + discourse adverbial + discourse adverbial + + + + + + + + + A cognitive and informational unit a hearer needs to construct in order to interpret a given stretch of discourse correctly. + Often, discourse entity is used as a synonym of discourse referent (e.g., Prince 1982), but here, a more general definition is adopted for the generalization over discourse referents, propositions and discourse segments. + discourse entity + + + + + + + + + discourse function + + + + + + + + + + + + 1 + + + A prototypical object that is referred to in discourse (Karttunen 1972). + discourse referent + + + + + + + + + Relation between discourse segments. (Mann and Thompson 1988) +In order to distangle discourse-syntactic (paratactic/hypotactic) and functional-semantic aspects, DiscourseRelation is distinguished from DiscourseStructuralPattern: DiscourseRelations defined discourse relations in terms of their communicative function and underlying semantics. An RST antithesis, for example, is thus to be defined both as a ContrastRelation (subclass of DiscourseRelation) and as a HypotacticDiscourseRelation (subclass of DiscourseStructuralPattern). + +Note that Attribution is modelled here as a relation (as in RST), not as a feature (as in PDTB). + corresponds to SemDok RhetoricalRelation (but not DiscourseRelation) + discourse relation + discourse relation + rhetorical relation + The taxonomy of DiscourseRelations follows roughly the Penn Discourse Treebank (Prasad et al. 2007), with additions in accordance to the Hindi Discourse Relation Bank (HDRB, Oza et al. 2009), the Italian LUNA corpus (Tonelli et al. 2010), the Leeds Arabic Discourse Treebank (LADTB, Al-Saif and Markert 2010) and an alignment with Carlson and Marcu's (2001) RST relations and with Wolf et al.'s (2003, PDGB) coherence relations. Unaligned relations are marked by suffixes RST (for classical RST and RDTDTB relations) on the one hand and PDTB, HDRB, LUNA and LADTB on the other hand. No indices are used are used if a relation can be confirmed for at least two families of annotation schemes (PDTB, RSTDTB, PDGB). + +We provide two, intersection subclassifications of discourse relations: +- ideational, interpersonal and textual (following SemDoc, i.e., the RST tradition) +- entity relations and (other) coherence relations (following PDTB) + +With the following overlaps: +- entity relations are ideational relations +- interpersonal relations are coherence relations +- textual relations (not addressed in PDTB) are disjoint from both entity and coherence relations + +However, the RST-style classification is encoded via subclasses of discourse function, the PDTB-style classification (along with additional concepts for textual patterns and dialog relations) is encoded via subclasses of discourse relation. + + + + + + + + + Cognitive representation representing a longer stretch of discourse (Grosz and Sidner 1986), defined by a particular "discourse segment purpose" (Grosz and Sidner 1986), a specific propositional content of the relation between dependent DiscourseSegments, or the propositional content of the text contained in a minimal discourse segment (Mann and Thompson 1988). DiscourseSegments are interconnected by DiscourseRelations in a hierarchical and sequential structure. + Discourse segment (discourse unit) is a segment of discourse that represents either an elementary discourse unit (e.g., a clause, proposition) or a complex discourse unit (constituted by several discourse units). Depending on theory, discourse segments reflect the scope of quantifiers and discourse connectives (Kamp 1982, Asher and Lascarides 2003), turn- or paragraph-like structures (Grosz and Sidner 1986) or range and domain of discourse relations (cf. Mann and Thompson 1988, Carlson et al. 2003). + Near-synonyms in RST literature are "discourse unit" (Carlsson et al. 2003) and "text span" (Mann and Thompson 1988). + cf. SemDok DiscourseSegment + roughly corresponds to the notion of "Arguments" in PDTB: + +Argument of a Relation, e.g., a connective. Syntactically characterized as Simple clauses, certain VP coordinations (the conjunction in a coordinated verb phase is not annotated as a distinct discourse connective, but one or more verb phrases within the coordinated structure can be annotated as the argument of another connective), certain nominalizations, anaphoric expressions denoting abstract objects (like "this", or "that" or "so"), responses to questions +(Prasad et al. 2007) + argument (PDTB) + discourse segment + discourse segment + discourse unit + node (PDGB) + + + + + + + + + The feature DiscourseStructuralPattern was introduced to characterize discourse relations according to their "discourse-syntactic" function as opposed to their functional-semantic function (that is formalized in DiscourseRelation). We distinguish paratactic (SDRT: coordinating, RST: multinuclear) and hypotactic (SDRT: subordinating, RST: mononuclear) relations. + discourse structural pattern + + + + + + + + + + ISO Substitution with argument disfavoured alternative, + disfavoured alternative + disfavoured alternative + + + + + + + + + + PDTB: Two situations are evoked in the discourse but only one of them holds. (Prasad et al. 2007) +Note that PDTB distinguishes Disjunction and Disjunctive. + +RST-DTB: DISJUNCTION is a multinuclear relation whose elements can be listed as alternatives, either positive or negative. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +RST: An item presents a (not necessarily exclusive) alternative for the other(s). (Mann and Taboada 2010) + disjunction + disjunctive + disjunctive + + + + + + + + + introduced for SemDok CDS-doc + document + document + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Drug + + + + + + + + + for nerd:EducationalInstitution + educational ORG + educational organization + educational institution + + + + + + + + + PDTB "Reason": The situation described in Arg2 is the cause and the situation described in Arg1 is the effect. (Prasad et al. 2007) + effect precedes cause (PDTB) + reason + + + + + + + + + + R recognizes S as providing additional detail for N. R identifies the element of subject matter for which detail is provided. (Mann and Taboada 2010) +Infer a set of coherent entities, E(DS0, DS1) from DS0 and DS1. The members of E(DS0, DS1) are centered around a common event or entity, e01. (Wolf et al. 2003) + +A classical discourse relation that has been applied to different kinds of dependency relations, e.g., between a set and its member(s), an abstraction and its instance(s), whole and part, process and step, object and attribute, or generalization and specific. +Since Knott et al. (2001), it seems generally accepted that elaboration is to be circumscribed by entity-based coherence, e.g., EntRel relationships as defined by Prasad et al. (2007): "no discourse relation can be inferred and where the second sentence only serves to provide some further description of an entity in the first sentence". + +Although Elaboration is thus closely entangled with anaphora and textual inferences, both phenomena are to be modelled separately: Elaboration is a relationship between discourse segments, whereas anaphora and bridging are relationships between discourse referents. + +The subclassification of Elaboration follows SemDok. Note that we do not express directionSatellite value "left" as we do not explicitly encode positioning. + +Our modelling follows Webber and Knott (2001) in assuming that elaboration is *always* mediated by an entity relation. However, in some cases relations grouped under elaboration in one framework are grouped with other discourse relations in the PDTB tradition (e.g., ElaborationSpecification is Elaboration in RST and SemDok, but a special case of Specification/Expansion in PDTB). In these cases, we provide double classification. + elaboration + + + + + + + + + In an ELABORATION-ADDITIONAL relation, the satellite gives additional infor- +mation or detail about the situation presented in the nucleus. This relation is extremely common at +all levels of the discourse structure, and is especially popular to show relations across large spans of information. It is the default for the family of elaboration relations, and should be used when +none of the other, more specific, elaboration relations apply. + +When an elaborating satellite is an embedded unit, the relation ELABORATION-ADDI- +TIONAL-E is used. Generally, the embedded satellite of this relation is separated from the nucleus +by a comma and represents a nonrestrictive relative clause, whereas an ELABORATION-OBJECT- +ATTRIBUTE-E represents a restrictive relative clause +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + elaboration additional (RST) + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-assign. +Note that we skipped the subclass Elaboration-assign-other, as its definition is unclear. + elaboration assign + + + + + + + + + SemDok ElaborationAssignAbbreviation + elaboration assign abbreviation + + + + + + + + + Elaboration-class-instance + elaboration class instance + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-class-subclass + elaboration class subclass + + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-continuation. We omitted the subclass Elaboration-continuation-other because it is unclear how this is defined. Its subclasses are, however, preserved. + +SemDok treats all topic continuity relations as subclasses of elaboration, but this comes with the assumption of hypotactic relation, whereas other topic continuity relations in RST are paratactic or underdefined (see TopicContinuityRelation). We thus add these SemDok elaborations as subclasses of TopicContinuityRelation rather than merging them into a single concept. + elaboration continuation + + + + + + + + + + from SemDok Elaboration-definition, no definition given + +We assume that this is (near-) identical to RST Definition. + elaboration definition + + + + + + + + + for SemDok Elaboration-derivation + elaboration derivation + + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-drift + elaboration drift + + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-example + +We assume that this is a mononuclear subclass of Example. + elaboration example + + + + + + + + + ELABORATION-GENERAL-SPECIFIC: The satellite provides specific information to help define a very general con- +cept introduced in the nucleus. +(Carlson et al. 2001) + elaboration generic specific (RST) + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-identity + elaboration identity + + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-integration + +No definition is given. By analogy with ElaborationWholePart, we assume that this may stand for ElaborationPartWhole, but this is unconfirmed. Based on this interpretation, however, we define it as subclass of Generalization. + +As a SemDok Elaboration, this is a subject-matter relation. This seems to be the main difference to SemDok Summary, which is interpersonal. + elaboration integration + + + + + + + + + ELABORATION-OBJECT-ATTRIBUTE is a relation involving a clause, usually a +postmodifier of a noun phrase, that is required to give meaning to an animate or inanimate object. +The modifying clause is the satellite, and the object it modifies is the nucleus. The satellite is +intrinsic to the meaning of the nucleus, and/or essential to understanding the context, and is +almost always an embedded unit. This relation is almost always embedded + +In embedded units, ELABORATION-OBJECT-ATTRIBUTE-E is much more common than +ELABORATION-ADDITIONAL-E. The way to distinguish between ELABORATION-OBJECT- +ATTRIBUTE-E and ELABORATION-ADDITIONAL-E is that the former is intrinsic to the object it is +modifying in the nucleus, while the latter is extrinsic, i.e. it contains information that is incidental +and which could be omitted without loss of understanding. Usually, an ELABORATION-ADDI- +TIONAL-E is separated from the nucleus by a comma and represents a nonrestrictive relative +clause, whereas an ELABORATION-OBJECT-ATTRIBUTE-E represents a restrictive relative clause. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + elaboration object attribute (RST) + + + + + + + + + + The Satellite gives details about an entity involved in the event described by the +Nucleus. The details cannot be captured by any of the relations above. +(Wolf et al. 2003) + elaboration of detail (PDGB) + + + + + + + + + The Satellite gives information about the location where the Nucleus took place +(Wolf et al. 2003) + elaboration of location (PDGB) + + + + + + + + + + The Satellite gives information about the time at which the Nucleus took place (???) +(Wolf et al. 2003) + elaboration of number (PDGB) + + + + + + + + + The Satellite gives information about an organization involved in the event +described by the Nucleus +(Wolf et al. 2003) + elaboration of organization (PDGB) + + + + + + + + + The Satellite gives information about a person involved in the event described by the +Nucleus +(Wolf et al. 2003) + elaboration of person (PDGB) + + + + + + + + + + The Satellite gives information about the time at which the Nucleus took place +(Wolf et al. 2003) + elaboration of time (PDGB) + + + + + + + + + In an ELABORATION-PART-WHOLE relation, the satellite specifies or elaborates +on a portion or part of the nucleus. Since this relation is most often appropriate for representing +parts of objects, it is only occasionally found to hold between EDUs. Most typically, this would be +in a parenthetical modifier. It is distinguished from ELABORATION-SET-MEMBER, in which each +member is representative of the entire set in a similar way. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + elaboration part whole (RST) + + + + + + + + + ELABORATION-PROCESS-STEP: In this elaboration relation, the nucleus introduces an activity or event (a pro- +cess). The satellite then enumerates the steps involved in carrying out the process, usually in chro- +nological order. Thus, the steps are most often represented in a multinuclear SEQUENCE +relationship. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +SemDok Elaboration-process-step + elaboration process step + + + + + + + + + elaboration process step (RST) + true + + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-Restatement + +Apparently, this is a mononuclear version of Restatement as found in other frameworks. + elaboration restatement + + + + + + + + + ELABORATION-SET-MEMBER: In this elaboration relation, the nucleus introduces a finite set (which may be +generic or a named entity) or a list of information. The satellite then specifically elaborates on at +least one member of the set. Typically, the members themselves are represented in a multinuclear +LIST relationship. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +SemDok Elaboration-set-member + elaboration set member + + + + + + + + + elaboration set member (RST) + true + + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-specification + +Apparently, this is a mononuclear version of Specification. + elaboration specification + + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-theme-rheme + elaboration theme rheme + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-theme-theme + +Unfortunately, SemDok doesn't provide definitions, so it is unclear whether this is meant to be comparable to TopicShift. At least, it would be surprising to see that modelled as an Elaboration. + elaboration theme theme + + + + + + + + + SemDok Elaboration-whole-part + elaboration whole part + + + + + + + + + element of + + + + + + + + + A discourse segment that does not contain dependent discourse segments. Elementary element of discourse structure defined by a variety of grammatical criteria (Carlsson et al. 2003). + An elementary discourse unit is a terminal element in a hierarchical model of discourse structure. +(Note that here, the term "discourse segment" is used, as discourse unit is potentially ambiguous in comparison with "discourse entity".) + +(cf. Carlson et al. 2003) + cf. SemDok ElementaryDiscourseSegment + edu + elementary discourse segment + elementary discourse unit + minimal discourse unit + + + + + + + + + for nerd:EmailAddress, sub nerd:Product + email + email address + + + + + + + + + + ISO Purpose with argument enablement. The nucleus is the the goal (intended result). + enablement + enablement + + + + + + + + + In an ENABLEMENT relation, the situation presented in the nucleus is unreal- +ized. The action presented in the satellite increases the chances of the situation in the nucleus +being realized. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + enablement (RST) + + + + + + + + + + No discourse relation can be inferred and where the second sentence only serves to provide some further description of an entity in the first sentence. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +Entity relations (which include Elaboration) are grouped with IdeationalRelations in SemDok, hence also a subclass of SubjectMatterRelation. + +Note that we follow Webber and Knott (2001) to assume that Elaboration is always an entity relation (even though this entity may be abstract or implicit), however, many types of elaboration (taxonomy following SemDok) are put under Expansion in the PDTB tradition. Entity relations proper are thus only elaborations which have no other discourse relation assigned. These are (only) the sublasses of ElaborationDerivation. + entity based relation + + + + + + + + + Categories specified for referring expressions (Poesio & Artstein 2006): Abstract, Animate, Concrete, Person, Plan, Space, Time + entity type + + + + + + + + + An extension of the PDTB scheme suggested by Oza et al. (2009). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. +(Oza et al. 2009) + epistemic cause (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + Suggested as an extension of the PDTB scheme by Oza et al. (2009) and Tonelli et al. (2010). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. +(Oza et al. 2009) + epistemic concession (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + epistemic condition + + + + + + + + + An extension of the PDTB scheme suggested by Oza et al. (2009). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. +(Oza et al. 2009) + epistemic condition (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + Sara Tonelli, Giuseppe Riccardi, Rashmi Prasad and Aravind Joshi (2010), Annotation of Discourse Relations for Conversational Spoken Dialogs, Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10), May, 19-21, Valletta, Malta + epistemic condition (LUNA) + + + + + + + + + Suggested as an extension of the PDTB scheme by Oza et al. (2009). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. +(Oza et al. 2009) + epistemic contrast (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + PDTB Restatement/equivalence. ISO Restatement (which does not include generalization/specialization relations, as these are in Elaboration, etc). + equivalent restatement + + + + + + + + + Arg1 and Arg2 describe the same situation from different perspectives. (Prasad et al. 2007) + equivalence + equivalent restatement (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + In an evaluation relationship, one span assesses the situation presented in the other +span of the relationship on a scale of good to bad. An evaluation can be an appraisal, estimation, +rating, interpretation, or assessment of a situation. The evaluation can be the viewpoint of the +writer or another agent in the text. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +Cf. SemDok Evaluation + evaluation + + + + + + + + + evaluation (RST) + true + + + + + + + + + introduced for nerd:Event, a NERD core class. + + + + + + + + + When eventuality AOs occur with attribution, it conveys an agent’s intention/attitude towards a considered event, state or action. Eventuality AOs occur with “control” types of attribution (“Ctrl” for short), conveyed by any of three different classes of control verbs (Sag and Pollard, 1991). The +first kind is anchored by a verb of influence like persuade, permit, order, and involve one agent influencing another agent to perform (or not perform) an action. The second kind is anchored by a verb of commitment like promise, agree, try, intend, refuse, decline, and involve an agent committing +to perform (or not perform) an action. The third kind is anchored by a verb of orientation like want, expect, wish, yearn, and involve desire, expectation, or some similar mental orientation towards some state(s) of affairs. These sub-distinctions are not encoded in the annotation, but we have used the definitions as a guide for identifying these predicates. +(Prasad et al. 2007, for PDTB) + eventual factuality + eventuality + + + + + + + + + Generalization over RST Evidence, SemDok Citation-evidence and SemDok Evidence + evidence + + + + + + + + + In an EVIDENCE relation, the situation presented in the satellite provides evi- +dence or justification for the situation presented in the nucleus. Usually EVIDENCE relations per- +tain to actions and situations that are independent of the will of an animate agent. Evidence is data +on which judgment of a conclusion may be based, and is presented by the writer or an agent in the +article to convince the reader of a point. An evidence satellite increases the chance of the reader +accepting the information presented in the nucleus. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + evidence (RST) + + + + + + + + + RST "Example": The satellite provides an example with respect to the information presented in +the nucleus. If the example is a member of a set which may be enumerable but not all of whose +elements are known or specified, then choose the relation EXAMPLE. If the example is a member of an enumerable set whose elements are known or specified, select the relation ELABORATION-SET- +MEMBER. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +Infer a set of entities from DS0, E(DS0), and a set of entities from DS1, E(DS1). Then +find some element in E(DS1) that is a member or subset of the corresponding +element in E(DS0). +• Infer a set of entities from DS0, E(DS0), and a set of entities from DS1, E(DS1). Then +find some element in E(DS1) that is a new instantiation of an entity in E(DS0). +(Wolf et al. 2003) + +cf. Al-Saif and Markert (2010) "Exemplification" in the LADTB corpus + example + + + + + + + + + PDTB Exception, ISO Exception + exception + + + + + + + + + Arg2 specifies an exception to the generalization specified by Arg1. In other words, Arg1 is false because Arg2 is true, but if Arg2 were false, Arg1 would be true. (Prasad et al. 2007) + exception (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + Relations which expand the discourse and move its narrative or exposition forward. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +Note that Expansion in the sense of ISO has been equated by Bunt & Prasad (ISA-12) with PDTB EntRel rather than PDTB Expansion. We follow this assessment + expansion + + + + + + + + + + PDTB COMPARISON/Concession/expectation: Arg2 creates an expectation that Arg1 denies. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +ISO Core-DR: Concession, argument Expectation-raiser (Bunt & Prasad, ISA-12) + expectation + expectation + + + + + + + + + An EXPLANATION-ARGUMENTATIVE relation usually pertain to actions and situations that are independent of the will of an animate agent.The satellite provides a factual explanation for the situation presented in the nucleus. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +Explanation: Infer a causal relation between DS0 and DS1. (Wolf et al. 2003) + explanation + + + + + + + + + Explicit discourse connectives ... are drawn primarily from well-defined syntactic classes, i.e., Subordinating conjunctions (e.g., because, when, since, although), Coordinating conjunctions (e.g., and, or, nor):, (ADVP and PP) adverbials (e.g., however, otherwise, then, as a result, for example). +(Prasad et al. 2007, PDTB) + explicit connective + + + + + + + + + Krifka distinguishes between ‘expression focus’ and ‘denotation focus.’ Differences in meaning are only found in the latter kind of focus, on which we concentrate here. + +The pragmatic use of focus (or ‘management of CG’) does not +involve any change in the truth-value of the sentence. Only the semantic use of focus (or ‘content of CG’) has such an effect. Pragmatic uses of focus include answers to wh-questions, corrections, confirmations, parallel expressions and delimitations. + +(Féry et al. 2007) + expression focus + + + + + + + + + cf. SemDok Extra (undefined) + extra + extra + + + + + + + + + Facts AOs involve attribution to an agent of an evaluation towards or knowledge of a proposition whose truth is taken for granted (i.e., presupposed). Fact AOs are associated with a “factive” type of attribution (“Ftv” for short), conveyed by “factive” and “semi-factive verbs” (Kiparsky and Kiparsky, 1971; Karttunen, 1971) such as regret, forget, remember, know, see, hear, etc. +(Prasad et al. 2007, PDTB) + fact + factive + factive factuality + + + + + + + + + factual condition + + + + + + + + + Oza et al. (2009) suggested to abandon the PDTB distinction between FactualPastCondition and FactualPresentCondition. + factual condition (HDRB) + merge with factual condition + + + + + + + + + Arg2 describes a situation that is assumed to have taken place at a time in the past, and in Arg1, a consequence that may subsequently occur assuming Arg2 holds. (Prasad et al. 2007) + factual past condition (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + Arg2 is a situation that has either been presented as a fact in the prior discourse or is believed +by somebody other than the speaker/writer. “Factual present” is really a special case of the subtype +“hypothetical”. (Prasad et al. 2007) + factual present condition (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + PDTB (applied to AttributionObjects) +Classification of Attribute relations with respect to the "Type", i.e., the nature of the relationship between agents and AOs, leading to different inferences about the degree of factuality of the AO (Prasad et al. 2007). + factuality + + + + + + + + + + ISO Substitution with argument favoured alternative + favoured alternative + favoured alternative + + + + + + + + + + Mononuclear relation linking a dialogue act with a responsive communicative function (feedback act) with its scope. The nucleus is the scope. + +Corresponds to ISO Feedback Dependence with argument feedback act. + feedback + feedback act + feedback act + + + + + + + + + + Mononuclear relation linking the scope of a feedback act with the feedback act. The nucleus is the feedback act. + +Corresponds to ISO Feedback Dependence with argument Feedback Scope. + feedback scope + feedback scope + + + + + + + + + for nerd:FictionalCharacter. As this is not supported by an external extractor, it is deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + Focus indicates the presence of alternatives that are relevant for the +interpretation of linguistic expressions. +(Féry et al. 2007) + +That part of an expression which provides the most relevant information in a particular context as opposed to the (not so relevant) rest of information making up the background of the utterance. Typically, focus on a subexpression indicates that it is selected from possible alternatives that are either implicit or given explicitly, whereas the background can be derived from the context of the utterance. (SFB632 Guidelines) + +Foci are classified here according to their discourse function (independently from their structural realization). + focus + + + + + + + + + Structural domain that corresponds to the scope of the focus. +(van Valin & Lapolla 1997) + focus domain + + + + + + + + + Supplementary information given outside of the body of the text, usually at +the end of a document in this corpus. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + footnote + + + + + + + + + An element that is realized at a particularly prominent (sentence-initial) position and defines a spatio-temporal context with reference to which an utterance is to be interpreted (Erteschik-Shir 1994). + frame setting topic + + + + + + + + + For nerd:Function (=opencalais:Position, dbo:PersonFunction), a NERD core class that seems to designate ranks and professions, albeit some of these are subsumed under nerd:Person. Because of the unclear definition and the unclear relation with nerd:Person, this is marked as deprecated. + FONC + function + person function + position + true + + + + + + + + + Every time that ||Arg2|| holds true , ||Arg1|| is also caused to be true. (Prasad et al. 2007) + general condition (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + + Arg2 summarizes Arg1, or in some cases expresses a conclusion based on Arg1. Typical connectives for “generalization” are in sum, overall, finally, etc. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +Infer a set of entities from DS0, E(DS0), and a set of entities from DS1, E(DS1). Then +find some element in E(DS0) that is a member or subset of the corresponding +element in E(DS1). +• Infer a set of entities from DS0, E(DS0), and a set of entities from DS1, E(DS1). Then +find some element in E(DS0) that is a new instantiation of an entity in E(DS1). +(Wolf et al. 2003) + generalization + + + + + + + + + A referent is accessible to a hearer on grounds of the hearer's world knowledge or knowledge the speaker presupposes the hearer to have. (Lambrecht 1994) + generally accessible + + + + + + + + + introduced as a generalization over nerd:Space subclasses pertaining to natural features and waterways (canals and lakes can be artificial) + + + + + + + + + A referent is given it is mentioned in the previous discourse, cf. Prince (1982) "textually evoked", Prince (1988) "discourse old". +For given referents, different hierarchies of cognitive states and corresponding referring expressions have been proposed (e.g. Levelt 1989, Ariel 1990, Gundel et al. 1993, Chafe 1996). As these conceptualizations are, however, often incompatible with each other, I only propose one subcategory here, i.e. referents that are particularly prominent (salient, active, in focus). + given + + + + + + + + + + ISO Purpose: Asymmetric relation in which Arg2 is the goal or purpose of Arg1. + +Mononuclear relation that corresponds to ISO Purpose with argument goal ("purpose"). The goal is the satellite. + +Cf. SemDok Purpose-n + goal + goal + purpose + purpose-n (SemDok) + + + + + + + + + The “Goal” sense: Under the “Contingency” class, we have added a new type “Goal”, which applies to relations where the situation described in one of the arguments is the goal of the situation described in the other argument (which enables the achievement of the goal). +(Oza et al. 2009, also adopted by Tonelli et al. 2010) + goal (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + habitual cooccurrence + + + + + + + + + The WSJ articles in our corpus did not include headings, so this schema was +not used in tagging the corpus. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + heading + + + + + + + + + introduced for nerd:Holiday, subclass of nerd:Time + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Hospital + + + + + + + + + + Subordinating or Mononuclear Relations (RST): +The most frequent structural pattern is that two spans of text (virtually always adjacent, but exceptions can be found) are related such that one of them has a specific role relative to the other. A paradigm case is a claim followed by evidence for the claim. RST posits an "Evidence" relation between the two spans. It also says that the claim is more essential to the text than the particular evidence, and this essentiality is represented by calling the claim span a nucleus and the evidence span a satellite. +(Mann and Taboada 2010) + asymmetrical coherence relation + hypotactic discourse relation + hypotaxis + mononuclear + mononuclear relation + subordination + + + + + + + + + If Arg2 holds true, Arg1 is caused to hold at some instant in all possible futures. However, Arg1 can be true +in the future independently of Arg2. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +In a HYPOTHETICAL relation, the satellite presents a situation that is not fac- +tual, but that one supposes or conjectures to be true. The nucleus presents the consequences that +would arise should the situation come true. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + hypothetical condition + + + + + + + + + Implicit discourse connectives (...) are inserted between paragraph-internal adjacent sentence pairs not related explicitly by any of the syntactically-defined set of Explicit connectives. (...) the reader must attempt to infer a discourse relation between the adjacent sentences, and “annotation” consists of inserting a connective expression that best conveys the inferred relation. Connectives inserted in this way to express inferred relations are called Implicit connectives. Multiple discourse relations (Webber et al., 1999) can also be inferred, and are annotated by inserting multiple Implicit connectives. + +The goal of annotating Implicit connectives in the PDTB is to capture relations between abstract +objects that are not realized explicitly in the text (by one of a set of the lexically-defined Explicit +connectives) and are left to be inferred by the reader. +(Prasad et al. 2007, PDTB) + implicit connective + + + + + + + + + In PDTB: Two kinds of implicit relations are distinguished: ImplicitConnectives (where a connective and an associated relation can be inferred) and EntityRelations (where neither connective nor relation can be inferred but referential coherence is observed). While the former is actually annotated in PDTB, the latter is not, hence no subclass here. + +PDTB Entity Relation: no discourse relation can be inferred and where the second sentence only serves to provide some further description of an entity in the first sentence (akin to entity-based coherence (Knott et al., 2001)) + +Entity-based coherence captures cases where the implicit relation between adjacent sentences is not between their AO +interpretations, but is rather a form of entity-based coherence (Knott et al., 2001) in which the same +entity is realized in both sentences + PDTB Entity Relation: no discourse relation can be inferred and where the second sentence only serves to provide some further description of an entity in the first sentence (akin to entity-based coherence (Knott et al., 2001)) + +Entity-based coherence captures cases where the implicit relation between adjacent sentences is not between their AO +interpretations, but is rather a form of entity-based coherence (Knott et al., 2001) in which the same +entity is realized in both sentences + implicit relation + + + + + + + + + Special rhetorical uses of if-constructions when the intepretation of the conditional construction is an implicit assertion. (Prasad et al. 2007) + implicit assertion + implicitly asserted condition (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + indefinite + + + + + + + + + Classification of Attribute relations with respect to their "determinacy", which signals a context that cancels what would otherwise be an entailment of attribution. +The determinacy feature captures the fact that the attribution over a relation or argument can itself be cancelled in particular contexts, such as within negated, conditional, and infinitive contexts. + +The attribution over a relation or argument can itself be cancelled in particular contexts, such as within negated, conditional, and infinitive contexts. Such indeterminacy is indicated by the value “Indet”. (Prasad et al. 2007) + indeterminate attribution + + + + + + + + + A referent is (textually) inferrable if the hearer constructs a mental representation of the referent on the basis of the earlier realization of another, related referent. Syn. "bridging" (Clark & Clark 1976) + inferrable + + + + + + + + + A property of discourse referents, hence referring expressions. This hierarchy is organized following the criteria of hearer new/hearer old and discourse new/discourse old of Prince (1988), the terminology is inspired by Lambrecht (1994) and Chafe (1996). + Givenness +A feature X of an expression α is a Givenness feature iff X indicates +whether the denotation of α is present in the CG or not, and/or indicates the degree to which it is present in the immediate CG. +(Féry et al. 2007) + information status + + + + + + + + + Since attribution can have scope over an entire relation, arguments can be annotated with a fourth value “Inh”, to indicate that their source value is inherited from the relation. (Prasad et al. 2007) + inherited attribution source + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Insect and extractiv:INSECT + + + + + + + + + Arg1 evokes a set and Arg2 describes it in further detail. Typical connectives often tagged as “Instantiation” are for example, +for instance and specifically. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +ISO DR-Core Excemplification, argument Instance + exemplification + instance + instantiation + instantiation + + + + + + + + + In interpretation relations, one side of the relation gives a different perspective on the situation presented in the other side. It is subjective, presenting the personal opinion of the writer or of a third party. An interpretation can be: 1) an explanation of what is not immediately plain or explicit; 2) an explanation of actions, events, or statements by pointing out or suggesting inner relationships, motives, or by relating particulars to general principles; or 3) an understanding or appreciation of a situation in light of individual belief, judgment, interest, or circumstance. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +cf. SemDok Interpretation + interpretation + + + + + + + + + interpretation (RST) + true + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + An INVERTED-SEQUENCE is a multinuclear list of events presented in reverse +chronological order. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + inverted sequence + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Island + + + + + + + + + generalization over SemDok Joint and RST Joint. As SemDok does not provide definitions, it is unclear whether these are equivalent, + joint + joint + + + + + + + + + Joint represents the lack of a rhetorical relation between the nuclei. (Mann and Taboada 2010) + joint (RST) + joint (RST) + + + + + + + + + Epistemic uses of the connective “because” are labelled as “Pragmatic cause:justification”. (Prasad et al. 2007) +RST "Justify": R's comprehending S increases R's readiness to accept W's right to present N (Mann and Taboada 2010) + +Cf. SemDok Justify, subclass of Support. + justification + justification + justify + + + + + + + + + The values assigned to some shared property are taken to be alternatives (e.g., John paid $5 +but Mary paid $10.) +(Prasad et al. 2007) + juxtaposition (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Lake + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Legislature + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Lighthouse + + + + + + + + + + + An item comparable to others linked to it by the List relation. (Mann and Taboada 2010) + +Arg1 and Arg2 are members of a list, defined in the prior discourse. “List” does not require the situations specified in Arg1 and Arg2 to be directly related. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +A LIST is a multinuclear relation whose elements can be listed, but which are not in a comparison, contrast or other, stronger type of multinuclear relation. A LIST relation usually exhibits some sort of parallel structure between the units involved in the relation. At lower levels of the discourse structure, such as between clauses or sentences, a LIST relation is often selected when there is some sort of parallel syntactic or semantic structure between the units, such as in the examples below. At higher levels of the discourse structure, the relation may be found when there are paragraphs of items enumerated in a similar fashion. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +Axiomatization follows SemDok. In particular, we assume that Lists do not follow any natural order, their order thus reflects an (implicit) purpose of the speaker. They are thus interpersonal (presentational) relations. + +Note that we skipped the SemDok subclass List-dm_other, as its definition is unclear. + list + + + + + + + + + Introduced as generalization over List and Sequence in analogy with SemDok. However, note that this is not a discourse relation proper, but a specific case of ParatacticDiscourseRelation for which no semantic relation except for paratactic organization can be provided. + list sequence + list/sequence + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Magazine sub nerd:Product + + + + + + + + + A manner satellite explains the way in which something is done. (It sometimes also expresses some sort of similarity/comparison.) The satellite answers the question “in what manner?” or “in what way?”. A MANNER relation is less “goal-oriented” than a MEANS relation, and often is more of a description of the style of an action. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + manner (RST) + + + + + + + + + NERD seems to have been designed for economic purposes, so all objects (non-animate, concrete entitites) are described as "product". Here, we go with the more neutral term "ManufacturedObject". + +for nerd:Product, subclass of nerd:Thing, not a NERD core class. + PROD + consumer product + product + manufactured object + + + + + + + + + An object on the map used for deictic references. +Language expressions may also depend on the visual, as opposed to verbal, context. An utterance like Could you pass me the salt? , uttered, e.g., +at a restaurant, is usually understandable even if salt hasn’t been mentioned +before; the recipient can recover the referent of the expression the salt from the visual context. (An even clearer example is Could you please close +the window? .) We will use the term deictic references to refer to these +expressions. +(Artstein & Poesio, 2006, ARRAU) + map object + + + + + + + + + A markable refers to an element that is subject to annotation. Annotation schemes for coreference annotation *applied to plain text* usually require explicitly defined markables, for example. + +The notion of Markable is somewhat problematic in its relation to DiscourseSegment. An RST elementary discourse unit (discourse segment) is basically a markable (almost-arbitrary plain String) together with a label, but an SDRT discourse segment is a structured semantic entity. Here, we remain agnostic. It is thus possible to define a joint subclass of DiscourseSegment and Markable for RST, for example. + markable + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Mayor, originally sub Person, here sub Politician. As this is not supported by an external extractor, it is deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + + + + ISO Manner is an asymmetric discourse relation in which the means (Arg1) is a way in which the achievement (Arg2) comes about or occurs. + +Corresponds to ISO Manner with argument means. Nucleus is the achievement. + +cf. SemDok Means: mononuclear, interpersonal + manner + means + means + + + + + + + + + A means satellite specifies a method, mechanism, instrument, channel or con- +duit for accomplishing some goal. It should tell you how something was or is to be accomplished. +In other words, the satellite answers a “by which means?”or “how?” question that can be assigned +to the nucleus. It is often indicated by the preposition by. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + means (RST) + + + + + + + + + introduced as a generalization over various nerd:Products + + + + + + + + + for nerd:MilitaryConflict + conflict + military conflict + + + + + + + + + Comprehending S increases R's desire to perform action in N +(Mann and Taboada 2010) + motivation (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Mountain + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Movie sub nerd:Product + film + movie name + movie + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Museum + + + + + + + + + for nerd:MusicalArtist, there subclass of nerd:Person. Cf. yahoo:music_artist + + + + + + + + + introduced as a generalization over nerd:Band and related terms, e.g., orchestra. + +A musical ensemble, also known as a music group or musical group, is a group of people who perform instrumental or vocal music, with the ensemble typically known by a distinct name. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_ensemble) + + + + + + + + + Wide focus and narrow focus represent an often-adopted, coarse-grained subclassification of foci according to their scope. Narrow focus means that one single constituent is in focus, whereas wide focus means that multiple constituents are in focus. (Fiedler & Chiarcos) + narrow focus + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + true + + + + + + + + + + + This relation marks a negative attribution. The negation must be in the satel- +lite, or source, of the attribution in order for the ATTRIBUTION-N relation to hold. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +Verbs of attribution are negated on the surface - syntactically (e.g., didn’t say, don’t think) or lexically (e.g., denied), and the negation reverses the polarity of the attributed relation or argument content (Horn, 1978). The interpretation of the contrastive relation denoted by but requires that Arg2 should be interpreted under the scope of negation. +(Prasad et al. 2007) + negated attribution + negated attribution + negative attribution + + + + + + + + + ISO: Asymmetric relation in which Arg1 is an unrealized situation which, when not realized, would lead to Arg2. + +Roughly comparable to UnrealPastCondition and UnrealPresentCondition in PDTB. For HDRB, Oza et al. (2009) suggested to abandon the original tense distinction of PDTB. + Introduced as a generalization over PDTB FactualPastCondition and FactualPresentCondition in accordance with HDRB. Roughly corresponds to ISO Condition with argument antecedent. + counterfactual + negative condition + negative condition + + + + + + + + + + The scopal polarity feature is annotated on relations and their arguments to identify cases where verbs +of attribution are negated on the surface - syntactically (e.g., didn’t say, don’t think) or lexically (e.g., +denied), but where the negation in fact reverses the polarity of the attributed relation or argument +content (Horn, 1978). Example (162) illustrates such a case. The but clause entails an interpretation +such as I think it’s not a main consideration, for which the negation must take narrow scope over the +embedded clause rather than the higher clause. In particular, the interpretation of the contrastive +relation denoted by but requires that Arg2 should be interpreted under the scope of negation. +(162) “Having the dividend increases is a supportive element in the market outlook, but +I don’t think it’s a main consideration,” he says. (0090) + +To capture such entailments with surface negations on attribution verbs, an argument of a connective +is marked “Neg” for scopal polarity when the interpretation of the connective requires the surface +negation to take semantic scope over the lower argument. Thus, in Example (162), scopal polarity is +marked as “Neg” for Arg2. +(Prasad et al. 2007) + negative polarity + + + + + + + + + A referent is new if at a given point in discourse, the hearer does not have a mental representation of this referent. (Prince 1988: "hearer-new") + new + + + + + + + + + New-information focus (nf) is that part of the utterance providing the new and missing information which serves to develop the discourse. (SFB632 Guidelines) + +WORDS: Who is reading a book? +NFocus:[ _nf Who] is reading a book? + +WORDS: Mary is reading a book. +NFocus: [ _nf Mary] is reading a book. (5.2.1) + +Also referred to as "assertive focus" or "completive focus". + new information focus + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Newspaper sub nerd:Product + + + + + + + + + non contrastive comparison + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + true + + + + + Instances of reported speech, both direct and indirect, should be marked for the rhetorical relation of ATTRIBUTION. The satellite is the source of the attribution (a clause containing a reporting verb, or a phrase beginning with according to), and the nucleus is the content of the reported message (which must be in a separate clause). The ATTRIBUTION relation is also used with cognitive predicates, to include feelings, thoughts, hopes, etc. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + non negated attribution + + + + + + + + + for nerd:NonProfitOrganization. As this is not supported by an external extractor, it is deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + non referring + + + + + + + + + S, by means other than motivating a volitional action, caused N; without the presentation of S, R might not know the particular cause of the situation; a presentation of N is more central than S to W's purposes in putting forth the N-S combination. (Mann and Taboada 2010) + non volitional cause (RST) + + + + + + + + + N caused S; presentation of N is more central to W's purposes in putting forth the N-S combination than is the presentation of S. +(Mann and Taboada 2010) + non volitional result (RST) + + + + + + + + + Source is some arbitrary individual(s) indicated via a non-specific reference in the text. (Prasad et al. 2007) + nonspecific attribution source + + + + + + + + + introduced as an abstraction over nerd:Product and :ManufacturedObject + + + + + + + + + Narrow focus on the object argument. (Fiedler) + object focus + + + + + + + + + for nerd:OperatingSystem, subclass of nerd:Product + operating system + + + + + + + + + verb/predicate operator focus includes most importantly "verum" focus (truth value focus, polarity focus) +(Güldemann et al. 2010) + operator focus + + + + + + + + + The values assigned to some shared property are the extremes of a gradable scale, e.g., tall-short, +accept-reject etc. +(Prasad et al. 2007) + opposition (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Organization, a NERD core class. As for organizations, we assume that this refers to organizations that are (or can be registered as) legal persons. In that sense, they are Concrete (because they are defined by a specific legal act)- In NERD, however, these are core concepts. + ORG + organization + + + + + + + + + A particular type of referent has been introduced before, the current referent specifies a new instantiation of this type, overtly marked by "other" (Poesio & Artstein 2006). + other + + + + + + + + + This is a mutually exclusive relation between two elements of equal importance. The situations presented by both the satellite and the nucleus are unrealized. Realizing the situation associated with the nucleus will prevent the realization of the consequences associated with the satellite. This relation may also be multinuclear. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + otherwise (RST) + + + + + + + + + Infer a set of entities from DS0, E(DS0), and a set of entities from DS1, E(DS1). +Then infer commonalities between members of E(DS0) and E(DS1). +(Wolf et al. 2003) + parallel + + + + + + + + + Coordinating or Multinuclear relations. + coordination + multinuclear + paratactic discourse relation + parataxis + symmetrical coherence relation + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Park + + + + + + + + + The referent is a part of another referent mentioned before (Poesio & Artstein 2006). + part of + + + + + + + + + A referent is a subset, an element, or a component of another referent mentioned before. (Stuttgart Guidelines) + part whole + + + + + + + + + Categories specified for referring expressions (Poesio & Artstein 2006): Abstract, Animate, Concrete, Person, Plan, Space, Time. + +Corresponds to nerd:Person + PERS + person + + + + + + + + + for nerd:PhoneNumber sub nerd:Product + + + + + + + + + A restatement relation is always mononuclear. The satellite and nucleus are of (roughly) comparable size. The satellite reiterates the information presented in the nucleus, typically with slightly different wording. It does not add to or interpret the information. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + plain restatement (RST) + + + + + + + + + Categories specified for referring expressions (Poesio & Artstein 2006): Abstract, Animate, Concrete, Person, Plan, Space, Time + plan + + + + + + + + + POINT-OF-ORIGIN refers to the geographic location in which the events in the +story take place. Use this schema if this information is designated separately at the beginning or +end of the article or section of the article. It should be linked to a TEXT or SECTIONTEXT schema. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + point of origin + + + + + + + + + PDTB: applied to attributions + +Classification of Attribute relations with respect to their "scopal polarity", marked when surface negated attribution reverses the polarity of the attributed AO. +The scopal polarity feature is annotated on relations and their arguments to identify cases where verbs +of attribution are negated on the surface - syntactically (e.g., didn’t say, don’t think) or lexically (e.g., +denied), but where the negation in fact reverses the polarity of the attributed relation or argument +content (Horn, 1978). +(Prasad et al. 2007) + polarity + + + + + + + + + "truth value focus", "polarity focus" + +Context: I cannot imagine that the princess kissed the slippery frog. +example: Yes, she DID kiss him. +(Güldemann et al. 2010) + polarity focus + + + + + + + + + for nerd:PoliticalEvent + + + + + + + + + introduced as generalization over PoliticalParty and nerd:Legislature + + + + + + + + + missing from NERD, however, nerd:PoliticalEvent was subclass of alchemyapi:PoliticalParty. This seems to have been misunderstood. + political party + + + + + + + + + introduced as a generalization over nerd subclasses of Space that have a special political or social function, e.g., city, county, etc. + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Politician and zemanta:politician + + + + + + + + + + Arg1 expresses a claim and Arg2 provides justification for this claim. There is no causal influence between the two situations. (Prasad et al. 2007) + Speech-act Cause (LUNA) + pragmatic cause + + + + + + + + + Suggested as an extension of the PDTB scheme by Oza et al. (2009). + pragmatic concession (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + In the LUNA corpus (Tonelli et al. 2010), PragmaticConcession is a sibling concept of SpeechActConcession, EpistemicConcession and PropositionalConcession. Apparently, PragmaticConcession_LUNA has more specific semantics than just being a generalization over these types so that it is represented independently here. + pragmatic concession (LUNA) + + + + + + + + + Conditional constructions whose interpretation deviates from that of the semantics of “Condition”. Arg1 and Arg2 are causally related. In all cases, Arg1 holds true independently of Arg2. (Prasad et al. 2007) + Speech-act Condition (LUNA) + pragmatic condition + + + + + + + + + The connective indicates a contrast between one of the arguments and an inference that can be drawn from the other, in many cases at the speech act level: The contrast is not between the situations described in Arg1 and Arg2. +(Prasad et al. 2007) + Speech-act Contrast (LUNA) + pragmatic contrast (PDTB) + + + + + + + + Note that "pragmatics" is used in a broad sense as opposed to semantics, hence discourse annotations are in its scope. + pragmatic feature + + + + + + + + + + + + + 1 + + + + + 1 + + + + + + + + + + + 1 + + + + + 1 + + + + + + PragmaticRelations are anaphoric, inferential or discourse-structural links between PragmaticCategories, e.g., DiscourseEntities, or AnnotationUnits. +Here, these are represented by an individual that represents the relation, and two properties hasSource and hasTarget that link is with the individuals that actually are connected by this relationship. + +Note that "pragmatics" is used in a broad sense as opposed to semantics, hence discourse annotations are in its scope. + cf. SemDok DiscourseRelation, which comprises both BridgingRelation and RhetoricalRelation. + pragmatic relation + + + + + + + + PragmaticCategory covers different information-structural, discourse-structural and classical pragmatic categories, structures and entities. + +Note that "pragmatics" is used in a broad sense as opposed to semantics, hence discourse annotations are in its scope. + pragmatic unit + + + + + + + + + + The connective indicates that the situation in Arg1 precedes the situation described in Arg2. (Prasad et al. 2007) + precedence relation + + + + + + + + + Narrow focus on the predicate. (Fiedler) + +predicate is the host of two major functions relating to focus +(a) it instantiates an illocutionary act which relates to different operators +(b) it identifies/selects a state of affairs +(Güldemann et al. 2010) + +Not to be confused with "predicate focus", as this is applied here to wide verb phrase focus following Lambrecht (1994) + + predicate centered focus + + + + + + + + + Following Lambrecht (1994), predicate focus is wide verb phrase focus. Not to be confused with PredicateCenteredFocus. + predicate focus + + + + + + + + + The relation compares two situations, acts, events, etc., and assigns a clear preference for one of the situations, acts, events, etc. The preferred situation, act, event, etc. is the nucleus. +(Lynn Carlson and Daniel Marcu. 2001. Discourse Tagging Manual. ISI Tech Report ISI-TR-545. July 2001. http://www.isi.edu/~marcu/discourse/tagging-ref-manual.pdf) + preference (RST) + + + + + + + + + RST-DTB Preference relation: The relation compares two situations, acts, events, etc., and assigns a clear preference for one of the situations, acts, events, etc. The preferred situation, act, event, etc. is the nucleus. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + preferred alternative (RST) + + + + + + + + + + introduced as generalization over Preparation in RST and SemDok. Axiomatization follows SemDok + preparation + preparation + + + + + + + + + + for SemDok Preparation-question + +I assume that this is basically equivalent with RhetoricalQuestion_RST, but note that SemDok does not provide explicit definitions. + preparation question + preparation-question + + + + + + + + + + for SemDok Preparation-title + preparation title + preparation-title + + + + + + + + + S precedes N in the text; S tends to make R more ready, interested or oriented for reading N +(Mann and Taboada 2010) + preparation (RST) + + + + + + + + + + + "[In RST] a distinction is made between Subject-Matter relations and Presentational relations. Subject-Matter relations express parts of the subject matter of the text. The Presentational relations facilitate the presentation process." +(http://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/intro.html) + cf. SemDok InterpersonalRelation, no definition given there, but the conventional definition alludes to RST "presentational relations". + +Conventional definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metafunction#Ideational_function): The interpersonal function refers to the grammatical choices that enable speakers to enact their complex and diverse interpersonal relations. This tenet of systemic functional linguistics is based on the claim that a speaker not only talks about something, but is always talking to and with others. + interpersonal relation + presentational relation + presentational relation + + + + + + + + + + Introduced as generalization over Problem-Solution in RST-DTB and SemDok. + +In a problem-solution relation, one textual span presents a problem, and the other text span presents a solution. The relation may be mononuclear or multinuclear, depending on the context. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +RST "Solutionhood": R recognizes N as a solution to the problem presented in S. (Mann and Taboada 2010) + problem solution + solutionhood + problem-solution + + + + + + + + + problem solution (RST) + true + + + + + + + + + for nerd:ProgrammingLanguage sub nerd:Product. Marked as deprecated as its qualification as a product is hardly justifiable. + +after renaming Product to "Manufactured Object", this is a valid concept, again + + + + + + + + + A PROPORTION relation expresses a proportionality or equivalence of tendency or degree between two nuclei. It is always multinuclear. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + proportion (RST) + + + + + + + + + Cognitive representation of the information conveyed in a particular clause or sentence. Not to be confused with "proposition" in semantics (Kintsch REF). + proposition + + + + + + + + + An extension of the PDTB scheme suggested by Oza et al. (2009). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. The propositional +subtype involves the inference of a complete +proposition. The relation is then taken to hold +between this inferred proposition and the propo- +sitional content of one of the arguments. +(Oza et al. 2009) + propositional cause (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + Suggested as an extension of the PDTB scheme by Oza et al. (2009) and Tonelli et al. (2010). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. The propositional +subtype involves the inference of a complete +proposition. The relation is then taken to hold +between this inferred proposition and the propo- +sitional content of one of the arguments. +(Oza et al. 2009) + propositional concession (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + An extension of the PDTB scheme suggested by Oza et al. (2009). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. The propositional +subtype involves the inference of a complete +proposition. The relation is then taken to hold +between this inferred proposition and the propo- +sitional content of one of the arguments. +(Oza et al. 2009) + propositional condition (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + Suggested as an extension of the PDTB scheme by Oza et al. (2009). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. The propositional +subtype involves the inference of a complete +proposition. The relation is then taken to hold +between this inferred proposition and the propo- +sitional content of one of the arguments. +(Oza et al. 2009) + propositional contrast (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + Proposition AOs involve attribution to an agent of his/her commitment towards the truth of a proposition. A further distinction captures differences in the degree of that commitment, by distinguishing between “assertions” and “beliefs”. +(Prasad et al. 2007, PDTB) + proposition + propositional factuality + + + + + + + + + + SemDok Purpose-s (Purpose Satellite?) + purpose-s + purpose-s (SemDok) + + + + + + + + + + The situation presented in the satellite of a purpose relation is only putative, i.e., it is yet to be achieved. Most often it can be paraphrased as “in order to”. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +cf. SemDok Purpose-n + purpose + purpose (RST) + purpose-n + purpose (RST) + + + + + + + + + In a question-answer relation, one textual span poses a question (not necessarily realized as an interrogative sentence), and the other text span answers the question. The relation may be mononuclear or multinuclear, depending on the context. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + question answer (RST) + TODO: merge with SolicitedResponse + + + + + + + + + for nerd:RadioProgram sub nerd:Product + + + + + + + + + for nerd:RadioStation sub nerd:Organization + + + + + + + + + PDTB Reason. This is introduced as a generalization over RST Reason because it does not come with assumptions about nuclearity. + reason + reason + + + + + + + + + + The nucleus must be an action carried out by an animate agent. Only animate agents can have reasons for performing actions. You can paraphrase it as “Satellite is the reason for Nucleus.” (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + reason (RST) + + + + + + + + + referentiality + + + + + + + + + referring + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + referring expression + + + + + + + + + In PDTB, Relations are organized according to their structural type (material manifestation). To avoid a terminological clash, these are referred to as RelationCue here. + +EntityRelations, however, do not represent a RelationCue as they are not physically materialized, but need to be inferred. + relation (PDTB) + cue word + discourse marker + relation cue + semdoc:DiscourseMarker + + + + + + + + + The conditional clause in the “relevance” conditional (Arg2) provides the context in which the description of the situation in Arg1 is relevant. There is no causal relation between the two arguments. (Prasad et al. 2007) + relevance conditional (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + + Mononuclear solicited response relation that links the antecedent act, e.g., a question, to the dependent act, i.e., the response. The nucleus is the response. + +Corresponds to ISO Functional Dependency with argument role "anteceent act". + antecedent act + question + request for comment + request for comment + + + + + + + + + + Mononuclear solicited response relation that links the dependent act, e.g., an answer or another response act, to the antececent act, e.g., a question. The nucleus is the antecedent act. + +Corresponds to ISO Functional Dependency with argument role "dependent act". + answer + dependent act + response + response act + response act + + + + + + + + + The semantics of Arg2 restates the semantics of Arg1. It is inferred that the situations described in Arg1 and Arg2 hold true at the same time. (Prasad et al. 2007) +An item is primarily a reexpression of one linked to it (Mann and Taboada 2010). +cf. Al-Saif and Markert (2010) "Reformulation" in the LADTB corpus + Reformulation (LADTB) + restatement + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Restaurant + + + + + + + + + Result corresponds to ISO Cause with argument Result. +Note that the other argument can be either a pragmatic cause (Justification) or a semantic cause (Reason), so we expect the difference between different kinds of causes to be expressed in the cause argument. + +PDTB Result, also generalizes over RST Result, but doesn't come with constraints on nuclearity. + +Corresponds to SemDoc ResultPurpose + result + result/purpose + result + + + + + + + + + + The situation presented in the satellite is the cause of the situation presented in the nucleus. The result, which is the nucleus, is the most important part. Without presenting the satellite, the reader may not know what caused the result in the nucleus. In contrast to a PURPOSE relation, the situation presented in the nucleus of a result relation is factual, i.e., it is achieved. The +intention of the writer is to emphasize the result. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +cf. SemDok Result. + result + result (RST) + result (RST) + + + + + + + + + In a RHETORICAL-QUESTION relation, the satellite poses a question vis-a-vis a segment of the text; the intention of the author is usually not to answer it, but rather, to raise an issue for the reader to consider, or to raise an issue for which the answer should be obvious. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + rhetorical question (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:River + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Road + + + + + + + + + A referent represents another instantiation of the same type of another pre-mentioned referent. (Stuttgart Guidelines) + same type + + + + + + + + + A pseudo-relation used as a device for linking two discontinuous text fragments that are really a single EDU, but which are broken up by an embedded unit. Examples of embedded units that can break up other EDUs include: relative clauses, other nominal postmodifiers, parentheticals, participial clauses, etc. By convention, this relation is always multinuclear. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + +If a DS has intervening material; the “Same” relation is no coherence relation, but +a “trick” that allows dealing with DSs nested in other DSs. (Wolf et al. 2003) + cf. SemDok SameSegment + same segment + same unit + same unit (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:SchoolNewspaper, but this is a subclass of nerd:Product + + + + + + + + + Often, an article will be broken up structurally into distinct sections represent- +ing different topics. In this case, the schema SectionText is used. Most often, each section will be +labeled, so there will be a corresponding SECTIONTITLE and SECTIONTEXT. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + section text + + + + + + + + + Often, an article will be broken up structurally into distinct sections represent- +ing different topics. Most often, each section will be labeled, so there will be a corresponding +SECTIONTITLE and SECTIONTEXT. Usually, the section title occurs on a separate line. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + section title + + + + + + + + + Sara Tonelli, Giuseppe Riccardi, Rashmi Prasad and Aravind Joshi (2010), Annotation of Discourse Relations for Conversational Spoken Dialogs, Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10), May, 19-21, Valletta, Malta + semantic alternative (LUNA) + + + + + + + + + The situations described in Arg1 and Arg2 are causally influenced and the two are not in a conditional relation. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +PDTB Reason. This is introduced as a generalization over RST Reason because it does not come with assumptions about nuclearity. + +The classification of causal relations in RST/RSTDTB and PDTB is hard to be aligneable, further, hence original definitions preserved with suffixed relations + +Cf. SemDok CausePurpose (but this is limited to HypotacticDiscourseRelations). + cause/purpose + reason + semantic cause + semantic cause + + + + + + + + + Suggested as an extension of the PDTB scheme by Oza et al. (2009) and Tonelli et al. (2010). + semantic concession (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + The situation in Arg2 is taken to be the condition and the situation described in Arg1 is taken to be the consequence, i.e., the situation that holds when the condition is true. Unlike “Cause”, however, the truth value of the arguments of a “Condition” relation cannot be determined independently of the connective. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +In a CONDITION relation, the truth of the proposition associated with the nucleus is a consequence of the fulfillment of the condition in the satellite. The satellite presents a situation that is not realized. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + semantic condition + Identified with RST Condition because of its association with the markers "as long as", "until", and "if", cf. Prasad et al. (2007). + + + + + + + + + Sara Tonelli, Giuseppe Riccardi, Rashmi Prasad and Aravind Joshi (2010), Annotation of Discourse Relations for Conversational Spoken Dialogs, Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10), May, 19-21, Valletta, Malta + semantic conjunction (LUNA) + + + + + + + + + Arg1 and Arg2 share a predicate or property and a difference is highlighted with respect to the values assigned to the shared property. (Prasad et al. 2007) + semantic contrast (PDTB) + + + + + + + + The SemanticFeatures enlisted here are drawn from discourse annotations. These are to move to the Reference Model + semantic feature + + + + + + + + + Sara Tonelli, Giuseppe Riccardi, Rashmi Prasad and Aravind Joshi (2010), Annotation of Discourse Relations for Conversational Spoken Dialogs, Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10), May, 19-21, Valletta, Malta + semantic goal (LUNA) + + + + + + + + + introduced to account for SemDok SententialDiscourseSegment + sentence + sentence + + + + + + + + + The entire sentence is in focus. + sentence focus + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + from SemDok + +It seems, however, that this conflates aspects of discourse structure with surface syntax, so whether this is a valid segment different from discourse segment or complex discourse segment may be debated. + sentential discourse segment + sentential discourse segment + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + A SEQUENCE is a multinuclear list of events presented in chronological order. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) +There is a succession relationship between the situations in the nuclei (Mann and Taboada 2010). + +cf. SemDok Sequence. We follow SemDok in assuming that the difference between Sequence and List is that a sequence has a natural (i.e., spatio-temporal) order and is thus an ideational (subject-matter) relation, whereas a list has no such order and is thus compiled and organized for a particular purpose, i.e., interpersonal (presentational) in nature. This is a design decision that may be reconsidered. + sequence + + + + + + + + + The referent denotes a subset or an element of a set mentioned before (Poesio & Artstein 2006). + set + + + + + + + + + for nerd:ShoppingMall + + + + + + + + + A SIGNATURE-BLOCK is a section of the document that may contain a person’s +name, title and company. If these occur on multiple lines, each line should be treated as a separate +EDU, and all should be linked via a LIST relation before the SIGNATURE-BLOCK label is selected. +This occurs in letters to the editor in the WSJ corpus. This schema is linked to the schema TEXT +(if the entire article is a letter) or SECTIONTEXT (if only a portion of the article is a letter). (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + signature block + + + + + + + + + ISO: Similarity is a symmetric discourse relation in which one or more similarities between Arg1 and Arg2 are highlighted with respect +to what each predicates as a whole or to some entities they mention. + +COMPARISON.Similarity applies when the connective indicates that the two arguments express similar abstract objects. It is therefore a complement to the contrast relation. +(Al-Saif and Markert 2010, LADTB) + +Also applied in the HDRB (Oza et al. 2009). + similarity + + + + + + + + + A referent is situationally accessible, if it has not been mentioned before, but it is prominent in the given situational environment (Lambrecht 1994, Chafe 1996, cf. Prince 1982 "situationally evoked"). + situationally accessible + + + + + + + + + for nerd:SoccerClub sub nerd:Organization. However, this is probably too specific, hence marked as deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + for nerd:SoccerPlayer, sub nerd:Person. Probably too specific, hence marked as deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Software + + + + + + + + + ISO: Functional depenence is an asymmetric relation between a dialogue act with a responsive communicative function (dependent act) and the dialogue act(s) that it responds to (antecedent act). + +comment: "functional dependence" is an unfortunate term because both "dependency" and "functional" have very different definitions in linguistic syntax (dependency syntax, functional grammar). As a less ambiguous term, we thus propose "response relation". Moreover, as the difference between feedback and response relations *seems* to be that feedback is unsolicited whereas a response is solicited, this dichothomy is used as a naming pattern, here. + functional dependence + response relation + solicited response + solicited response + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Song, zemanta:track + track + song + + + + + + + + + The schema SOURCE is used when an article, or section of an article, begins or +ends by noting the source of the information presented in the article. It should be linked to a TEXT +or SECTIONTEXT schema. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + source + + + + + + + + + Categories specified for referring expressions (Poesio & Artstein 2006): Abstract, Animate, Concrete, Person, Plan, Space, Time + +corresponds to nerd:Location + LOC + location + place + space + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Spacecraft + + + + + + + + + Arg2 describes the situation described in Arg1 in more detail. Typical connectives for “specification” are specifically, +indeed and in fact. (Prasad et al. 2007) + specialized restatement (PDTB) + specification + + + + + + + + + + PDTB Specification + +ISO Elaboration, argument role SpecificPartOfElaboration + specification + + + + + + + + + Sara Tonelli, Giuseppe Riccardi, Rashmi Prasad and Aravind Joshi (2010), Annotation of Discourse Relations for Conversational Spoken Dialogs, Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10), May, 19-21, Valletta, Malta + speech act alternative (LUNA) + + + + + + + + + An extension of the PDTB scheme suggested by Oza et al. (2009). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. +(Oza et al. 2009) + speech act cause (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + Suggested as an extension of the PDTB scheme by Oza et al. (2009) and Tonelli et al. (2010). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. +(Oza et al. 2009) + speech act concession (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + An extension of the PDTB scheme suggested by Oza et al. (2009). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. +(Oza et al. 2009) + speech act condition (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + Sara Tonelli, Giuseppe Riccardi, Rashmi Prasad and Aravind Joshi (2010), Annotation of Discourse Relations for Conversational Spoken Dialogs, Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10), May, 19-21, Valletta, Malta + speech act conjunction (LUNA) + + + + + + + + + Suggested as an extension of the PDTB scheme by Oza et al. (2009). + +Each pragmatic sense at the type level is +further distinguished into three subtypes: “epis- +temic” (Sweetser 1990), “speech-act” (Sweetser +1990), and “propositional”. +(Oza et al. 2009) + speech act contrast (HDRB) + + + + + + + + + Sara Tonelli, Giuseppe Riccardi, Rashmi Prasad and Aravind Joshi (2010), Annotation of Discourse Relations for Conversational Spoken Dialogs, Proceedings of the Seventh conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC'10), May, 19-21, Valletta, Malta + speech act goal (LUNA) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:SportEvent + sports event + sport event + + + + + + + + + for nerd:SportsLeague sub nerd:Organization + + + + + + + + + introduced as generalization over nerd:SportsLeague, nerd:SportsTeam, nerd:SoccerClub. Note that "sports organization" is somewhat ambiguous. In a broader sense (as adopted here), it refers to any (NERD) organzation concerned with sports, in a stricter sense, it refers to "any organization that serves as the ruling body for an event for one or several sports." (https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/sports-organization) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:SportsTeam sub nerd:Organization + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Stadium + + + + + + + + + StateOfAffairFocus, i.e., focus is often (but not necessarily) on a verbal lexeme + +e.g., +Quaestio: What did the princess do with the frog ? +Example: She KISSED him. +(Güldemann et al. 2010) + state of affair focus + + + + + + + + + In a STATEMENT-RESPONSE relation, one textual span presents a statement and the other span makes some sort of response to it. The statement may be one actually spoken by someone or the author’s statement of a situation. Similarly, the response may be one actually spoken or a situational response to what is occurring in the statement portion. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + statement response (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Station + + + + + + + + + adopted from SemDok + structural connective + structural connective + + + + + + + + + By StructuralFocusType, we mean a classification of foci according to the structural characteristics, i.e., their scope. + +The subclassification of StructuralFocusType assumed here follows a suggestion by Ines Fiedler (2010, Oct 14). + structural focus type + + + + + + + + + sub set of + + + + + + + + + Narrow focus on the subject argument. (Fiedler) + subject focus + + + + + + + + + + "[In RST] a distinction is made between Subject-Matter relations and Presentational relations. Subject-Matter relations express parts of the subject matter of the text. The Presentational relations facilitate the presentation process." +(http://www.sfu.ca/rst/01intro/intro.html) + cf. SemDok IdeationalRelation, except for disjointness axions there is no definition given there, but the conventional definition alludes to RST "subject-matter relations". + +Conventional definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metafunction#Ideational_function): The ideational function is language concerned with building and maintaining a theory of experience. It includes the experiential function and the logical function. The experiential function refers to the grammatical choices that enable speakers to make meanings about the world around us and inside us ... Halliday describes the logical function as those systems "which set up logical–semantic relationships between one clausal unit and another" + ideational relation + subject-matter relation + subject matter relation + + + + + + + + + + The connective indicates that the situation described in Arg1 follows the situation described in Arg2. (Prasad et al. 2007) + succession relation + + + + + + + + + + + introduced as generalization over RST Summary and SemDok Summary. Axiomatized according to the latter (mononuclear presentational relation). + summary + + + + + + + + + In a SUMMARY-S relation, the satellite summarizes the information presented in the nucleus. The emphasis is on the situation presented in the nucleus. The size of the summary (the satellite) is shorter than the size of the nucleus. In an SUMMARY-N relation, the nucleus summarizes the information presented in the satellite. The emphasis is on the summary. The size of the summary (the nucleus) is shorter than the size of the satellite. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + summary (RST) + + + + + + + + + + + for SemDok Support, mononuclear interpersonal relation + support + + + + + + + + + The situations described in Arg1 and Arg2 overlap. (Prasad et al. 2007) + synchronous relation + + + + + + + + + Focus with scope over a tense, aspect, or mood marker (Fiedler & Chiarcos) + +Quaestio: Is the princess kissing the frog (right now) ? +example: She HAS kissed him. +(Güldemann et al. 2010; note: example ambiguous with polarity focus) + t a m focus + + + + + + + + + for nerd:TVStation sub nerd:Organization + TV network + TV station + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In a TEMPORAL-AFTER relation, the situation presented in the nucleus (often +realized as a superordinate clause) occurs after the situation presented in the satellite (often real- +ized as a subordinate clause). When the relation is multinuclear, and the spans occur in temporal +order -- i.e., the situation presented in the second segment occurs after the situation presented in +the first segment -- select the multinuclear relation SEQUENCE. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + temporal after + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + In a TEMPORAL-BEFORE relation, the situation presented in the nucleus (often +realized as a superordinate clause) occurs before or leading up to the situation in the satellite +(often realized as a subordinate clause). When the relation is multinuclear but the spans occur in +reverse temporal order -- i.e., the situation presented in the second span occurs before the situation +presented in the first span -- select the multinuclear relation INVERTED-SEQUENCE. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + temporal before + + + + + + + + + The situations described in the arguments are related temporally. (Prasad et al. 2007) + +Infer a temporal sequence of the events described by DS0 and DS1. There is no +causal relation between DS0 and DS1. If there is a causal relation, the relation between DS0 +and DS1 should be described as a Cause-Effect relation. +(Wolf et al. 2003) + temporal relation + + + + + + + + + In a TEMPORAL-SAME-TIME relation, the situations presented in the nucleus and satellite occur at approximately the same time, or at least there is an overlap between the two situations. This relation can be mononuclear or multinuclear. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + temporal same time + + + + + + + + + for nerd:TennisPlayer, sub nerd:Person. Probably too specific, hence marked as deprecated. + true + + + + + + + + + The schema Text is used to link the main body of the text to other structural +elements of the document, such as a FOOTNOTE, SOURCE, HEADING, etc. This schema is used only +if the entire body of the text should be linked to another schema. If only a subsection of the text is +relevant, the schema SECTIONTEXT is used instead. Occasionally, a WSJ document contains more +than one article. In that case, the schema TEXT may be used, for example to link a TITLE and TEXT +for each of the three articles included within a single document (see example below under 13. +Title). (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + text + + + + + + + + Structural elements of the organization of a text, such as a title, author, signature block, or the body of the text itself. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001, definition of "Schema" in Rhetorical Structure Theory, cf. Mann and Thompson 1988) + RST Schema + text structural unit + text-structural unit + subClasses adopted from classification of RST schemata by Marcu and Carlson (2001) + + + + + + + + + TEXTUAL-ORGANIZATION is a multinuclear relation used to link elements of the structure of the text, for example, to link a title with the body of the text, a section title with the text of a section, etc. The role of the relation is primarily that of enforcing a tree structure on the representation. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + This seems to roughly correspond to SemDok Schema (with sub-class ArticleTopLevelSchema). However, note that a schema is an n-ary relation whereas text-organizational relations are binary. + schema + textual organization + textual organization (RST) + + + + + + + + + "Pseudo-relations" that represent conventional text-structural relationships between text spans, not strictly speaking discourse relations. + cf. SemDok TextualRelation + textual organizational relation + textual organizational relation + textual relation + + + + + + + + + Categories specified for referring expressions (Poesio & Artstein 2006): Abstract, Animate, Concrete, Person, Plan, Space, Time. +Corresponds to nerd:Time. + time + + + + + + + + + The WSJ documents from the LDC usually did not include titles. However, in +a small number of cases, a WSJ document consisted of more than one article, each of which +included a title. In that case the schemata TITLE and TEXT were used. (Carlson and Marcu 2001) + title + + + + + + + + + "Topic" is a prominent notion in pragmatics, though often with varying definitions. For detailed definitions, compare the sub-classes. + The topic constituent identifies the entity or set of entities under which +the information expressed in the comment constituent should be stored in the CG content. + +The notion of topic is best understood as a kind of address or file card which specifies the individual or set about which the remainder of the sentence makes a comment (see Reinhart 1981 for such a concept of topicality). It has no truthconditional effect except that it presupposes the existence of that individual. In this sense, the complement of ‘topic’ is ‘comment,’ which can itself be partitioned into a focused and a backgrounded part. Sentences usually have only one topic, but can also have none, or more than one. Following Jacobs (2001), topics can be aboutness or frame-setting topics, and the means to express a topic in the grammar can be pinpointed rather precisely in terms of which syntactic and intonational preferences the topic displays, at least in an intonation language. However, according to Féry’s theses, none of these properties are definitional for topic. Rather they express preferences as to how a ‘good’ topic has to be realized (see also Jacobs 2001 for a similar view). +(Féry et al. 2007) + topic + + + + + + + + + introduced as generalization over TopicComment_RST and ElaborationThemeRheme (from SemDok). These differ in nuclearity. + topic comment + + + + + + + + + + A general statement or topic of discussion is introduced, after which a specific +remark is made on the statement or topic. This relation is always multinuclear, as both spans are +necessary to understand the context. When the spans occur in the reverse order, with the comment +preceding the topic, the relation COMMENT-TOPIC is selected. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + topic comment (RST) + + + + + + + + + TopicShift and TopicDrift. + progression + topic continuity relation + topic continuity relation + Introduced as a supercategory for RST-DTB relations topic-shift and topic-drift. Both connect large text spans that were no subject to annotation in PDTB. + +Note that C-TED introduced EXPANSION.Progression in an extension of the PDTB 3 schema. As progression in Chinese refers to aspects of topic continuity, this concept, formerly a direct subclass of CoherenceRelation, has been reconceptualized as a subclass of Expansion. + + + + + + + + + introduced as generalization over ElaborationDrift (from SemDok) and TopicDrift_RST + topic drift + + + + + + + + + The relation TOPIC-DRIFT is used to link large textual spans when the topic +drifts smoothly from the information presented in the first span to the information presented in the +second. The same elements are in focus in both textual units. While this relation may be either +mononuclear or multinuclear, it is usually multinuclear. Only select mononuclear if the relative +size or importance of one of the spans is less significant than that of the other. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + topic drift (RST) + + + + + + + + + A topic expression is the expression that denotates the topic referent. (Lambrecht 1994) + topic expression + + + + + + + + + introduced in analogy to TopicDrift as a generalization over TopicShift_RST. + topic shift + + + + + + + + + The relation TOPIC-SHIFT is used to link large textual spans when there is a +sharp change in focus going from one segment to the other. The same elements are NOT in focus +in the two spans. While this relation may be either mononuclear or multinuclear, it is usually +multinuclear. Only select mononuclear if the relative size or importance of one of the spans is less +significant than that of the other. +(Carlson and Marcu 2001) + topic shift (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:URL sub nerd:Product + + + + + + + + + S conceivably could affect the realization of N, N does not depend on S. R recognizes that N does not depend on S. +(Mann and Taboada 2010) + +cf. Wolf et al.'s (2003) "ViolatedExpectation": Infer that normally there is a causal relation between DS0 and DS1 but that causal relation is absent between DS0 and DS1. + unconditional + + + + + + + + + for nerd:University, originally subclass of Organization + + + + + + + + + S affects the realization of N; N is realized provided that S is not realized. +(Mann and Taboada 2010) + unless (RST) + + + + + + + + + In the absence of an independent occurrence of attribution on an argument, as for Arg2 of Example (158), a “Null” value for the type on the argument means that it needs to be derived by independent (here, undefined) considerations under the scope of the relation. + +(158) When Mr. Green won a $240,000 verdict in a land condemnation case against the State in June 1983, he says Judge O’Kicki unexpectedly awarded him an additional $100,000. (0267) + +Note that unlike the “Inh” value of the source feature, “Null” does not indicate inheritance. In a subordinate clause, for example, while the relation denoted by the subordinating conjunction may be asserted, the clause content itself may be “presupposed”, as seems to be the case in (158). However, we found these differences difficult to determine at times, and consequently leave this undefined in the scheme. +(Prasad et al. 2007, for PDTB) + attribution type null + unmarked factuality + + + + + + + + + "Null" marking in PDTB, i.e. Default (or NonNegated) + default polarity + positive + unmarked polarity + unmarked polarity + + + + + + + + + Oza et al. (2009) suggested to abandon the PDTB distinction between UnrealPastCondition and UnrealPresentCondition. + unreal condition (HDRB) + TODO: merge with NegativeCondition + + + + + + + + + Arg2 describes a situation that did not occur in the past and Arg1 expresses what the consequence would have been if it had. It is inferred from the semantics of this subtype of “Condition” that the situations described in Arg1 and Arg2 did not hold. (Prasad et al. 2007) + unreal past condition (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + Arg2 describes a condition that either does not hold at present. Arg1 describes what would also hold if Arg2 were true. “Unreal present” represents the semantics of conditional relations also known in the lingustic literature as present counterfactuals (Iatridou, 2000). The semantics for “unreal present” is a special case of the semantics for hypothetical. (Prasad et al. 2007) + unreal present condition (PDTB) + + + + + + + + + ISO: Asymmetric relation of a feedback act with its scope: Feedback act is a dialogue act with a responsive communicative function; Feedback scope is the dialogue act(s) that the feedback act responds to. + +Comment: Note that "Dependence" implies an ordering here (in analogy with dependency syntax), however, Bunt and Prasad explicitly argue against such an interpretation in their schema (when comparing it with RST nuclearity). As a less ambigous term, we thus introduce the label "feedback relation". Moreover, as the difference between feedback and response relations *seems* to be that feedback is unsolicited whereas a response is solicited, this dichothomy is used as a naming pattern, here. + feedback dependence + feedback relation + unsolicited response + unsolicited response + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Valley + + + + + + + + + introduced as a generalization over various nerd:Products that designate means of transportation + + + + + + + + + for nerd:VideoGame sub nerd:Product + video game + + + + + + + + + R recognizes S as a cause for the volitional action in N +(Mann and Taboada 2010) + volitional cause (RST) + + + + + + + + + R recognizes that N could be a cause for the action or situation in S +(Mann and Taboada 2010) + volitional result (RST) + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Weapon + + + + + + + + + for nerd:Website, sub nerd:Product + + + + + + + + + A referent represents a superset, a class, type or environment to which another pre-mentioned referent belongs (Stuttgart Guidelines). + whole part + + + + + + + + + Wide focus and narrow focus represent an often-adopted, coarse-grained subclassification of foci according to their scope. Narrow focus means that one single constituent is in focus, whereas wide focus means that multiple constituents are in focus. (Fiedler & Chiarcos) + wide focus + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Designation of a unique entity or a singleton concept (CC) + introduced as generalization over NamedEntity, Apellation and lexinfo:partNumber + identifier + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2275, note that the definition refers to the text that designates the entity, not the entity itself; consider renaming to NameOfEntity + + segment of text for which one or many rigid designators stands for the referent + (Gil Francopoulo; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2275) + + named entity + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-347 + A designation that represents an individual concept. (Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-347) + + A verbal designation of an individual, unique concept, e. g. Mount Everest, Nobel Prize (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appellation_(disambiguation)) + + apellation + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1409 + + Complete unit of talk, bounded by the speaker's silence. + (www.sil.org/linguistics/GlossaryOfLinguisticTerms/WhatIsAnUtterance.htm; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1409) + + utterance + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-353 + A brief popular axiom or saying. (Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-353) + + + + + + + + + + + http://purl.org/olia/tcodex.owl#VocativeForm + vocative expression + An expression referring to a person to which the utterance is addressed, e.g. Old High German "truhtin", "meistar" or "fater". The vocative expression typically occurs outside of the clause and not in an argument position selected by the predicate. (Petrova 2008, see http://purl.org/olia/tcodex.owl) + + + + + + + + + -HLN (headline) +— marks headlines and datelines. Note that headlines and datelines always constitute a unit of text that is structurally independent from the following sentence. +(Bies et al. 1995) + PTB bracketing guidelines, Bies et al. 1995 + + + + + + + introduced as generalization over Boilerplate, Headline etc. + + Text structure relates to the physical features of text as it is laid out for reading. This includes the arrangement of sentences and paragraphs, and other aspects of the ordering of information in reading materials. + (https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Text_structure) + + + + + + + + A fixed chunk of recurring text. (Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-343) + + Boilerplate text, or simply boilerplate, is any written text (copy) that can be reused in new contexts or applications without significant changes to the original. The term is used in reference to statements, contracts and computer code ... In contract law, the term "boilerplate language" or "boilerplate clause" describes the parts of a contract that are considered standard. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boilerplate_text) + + standard text + boilerplate text + boilerplate + Textbaustein + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-343 + + + + -TTL (title) +— is attached to the top node of a title when this title appears inside running text. +-TTL implies -NOM. The internal structure of the title is bracketed as usual. (See section 12 [Titles] for more information about the bracketing of titles.) +(Bies et al. 1995) + + + + PTB bracketing guidelines, Bies et al. 1995 + + + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1355 + + Relative to the possession or association. + (www.wordreference.com/English/definition.asp?en=possessive; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1355) + + possessive + + + + subClassOf referentType (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1946 + + Property that refers to the person. + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1946) + + personal + + + + subClassOf referentType (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1993 + + Register of terms that are company-specific and not readily recognized outside this environment. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1993) + + in house register + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1992 + + Formal register. + (12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1992) + + formal register + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1989, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-427 + + Register of terms used in applications-oriented as opposed to theoretical or academic levels of language. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1989, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-427) + + bench-level register + shop term + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1990 + + Register that is specific to a dialect. + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1990) + + dialect register + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1991 + + Register related to an expression that is intended to be clever and funny but that is really silly and annoying. + (Longma DCE; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1991) + + facecious register + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1994 + + Register for irony. + (12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1994) + + ironic register + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1999 + + The register appropriate to general texts or discourse. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1999) + + neutral register + standard register + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1995 + + An extremely informal register of a word, term, or text that is used in spoken and everyday language and less commonly in documents. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1995) + + slang register + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1996 + + Register that expresses a situation that people avoid because it is extremely offensive or embarrassing. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1996) + + taboo register + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1997 + + The register appropriate to scientific texts or special languages. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1997) + + technical register + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-380, but rendered as a feature of individual terms, there + Used for terms that are legally defined and used in legally binding documents. + (cf. http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-380) + + legal register + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1998 + + Register of a term or text type that can be characterized as profane or socially unacceptable. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1998) + + vulgar register + + + + subClassOf register (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + internationalism + A term that has the same or nearly identical orthographic or phonemic form in many languages. (Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-320) + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-320, TODO: check treatment as register feature + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1866 + to denote something that cannot be considered as being correct in a given language + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1865 + Value that denotes a linguistic situation considered as being correct in the given language + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1986 + + Said of a term that is almost never used. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1986) + + rarely used + + + + subClassOf frequency (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1984 + + Said of a term that appears frequently. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1984) + + commonly used + + + + subClassOf frequency (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-376 + + Preferred Term: A term rated according to the scale of a term acceptability rating as the primary term for a given concept. + (Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-376) + + preferred + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-375 + + Standardized Term: A term that has been standardized by a standardizing body. + (Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-375) + + standardized + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1985 + + Said of a term that does not appear frequently. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1985) + + infrequently used + + + + subClassOf frequency (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1977 + Variation on a particular usage or immediate proximity of words. + + + + + + + dating + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1959 + Indication specifying whether the usage is old or modern. + + + + + + + deprecated term + deprecated + superseded term + superseded + obsolete form + obsolete + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-378, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-379 + Deprecated Term: A term rated according to the scale of a term acceptability rating as undesired. (Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-378) + + Superseded Term: A term that is no longer preferred or admitted. (Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-379) + + Obsolete Form: A term or lexeme which is no longer in common use. (Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-506) + + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1962 (modern) + + Currently in use. + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1962) + + modern + + + + subClassOf dating (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1961, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-505 + + Old: Used in the past. + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1961) + + Outdated form: A term or lexeme that has fallen from fashion, but the meaning of which is readily recognizable.(Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-505) + + old + outdated + + + + subClassOf dating (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1851 + + Description of a specific form used in a certain region as opposed to another form used in another region + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1851) + + geographical variant + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2347 + + special form of language used when talking about those in positions of social situation + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2347) + + honorific + + + + + + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1376 (referentType) + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1988 + + Classification indicating the relative level of language individually assigned to a lexeme or term or to a text type. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1988) + + + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1965 + + The relative commonness with which a term occurs. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1965) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Currently in use. + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1962) + + + + modern + + + modern usage + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1962 (modern) + + + subClassOf dating (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + + + + Old: Used in the past. + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1961) + + Outdated form: A term or lexeme that has fallen from fashion, but the meaning of which is readily recognizable.(Sue Ellen Wright, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-505) + + + + old + + + old usage + + + outdated + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1961, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-505 + + + subClassOf dating (dcif:conceptualDomain) + + + + + + + + + Indication specifying whether the usage is old or modern. + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1959 + + + dating + + + temporally defined usage + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + added in accordance with TIGER + + + + added in accordance with TIGER + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/modularized/olia-top.owl b/modularized/olia-top.owl new file mode 100644 index 0000000..35458b0 --- /dev/null +++ b/modularized/olia-top.owl @@ -0,0 +1,868 @@ + + + + + TODO: check upper level organization, remodel strength as categories (as in DCR), rename UsageAndFrequencyFeature to UsageFeature + Top categories of the OLiA Reference Model + 2010/01/19 created + 2010/04/08 removed NPFunction (=> SyntacticRole) + 2010/04/13 added MorphologicalProcess, MorphologicalFeature, DiscourseFeature, AnimacyFeature, + ReferentTypeFeature, RegisterFeature, UsageAndFrequencyFeature + 2010/04/14 validation, PossessiveFeature removed (see olia:hasOwnerNumber), moved olia:NarrativeType and olia:PolarityFeature here + 2010/04/15 additions in accordance to the PTB Bracketing Guidelines: NullElement, SentenceTypeFeature (Santorini 1991, Bies et al. 1995) + 2010/11/30 added TopologicalField in accordance to the TueDa-D/Z annotation guidelines (Telljohann et al. 2009) + 2011/07/29 replace url by purl + 2011/07/31 added ProximityFeature + 2011/08/03 added SpecificityFeature + 2011/08/04 SubordTypeFeature, CoordTypeFeature deprecated, added NumeralAgreementClass + 2011/08/11 StrengthFeature recast as MorphologicalFeature rather than MorphosyntacticFeature + 2011/08/15 EmphasisFeature added + 2011/08/15 PhonologicalProcess added (for Elision and Apocope, formerly both classified as MorphologicalProcess) + 2013/06/25 EvidentialityFeature, ClusivityFeature added (from ISOcat), intensity as new label to EmphasisFeature + LexicalRelation for labels for relations holding between lexemes + 2013/06/27 AgreementFeature (from ISOcat, as superclass of NominalAgreementClass, Person, Gender, Number; not as a relation between words) + 2013/06/28 EvaluativeFeature (for ISOcat PreferredEvaluative and PejorativeEvaluative), ModalityFeature (Modality and Mood distinction revised) + 2016/04/18 fixed minor validity warnings + 2016/08/29 added MovementFeature as cover term for Rising and Control (for compliance with lexinfo) + 2020/02/06 fixed use of owl:deprecated + 2020/02/24 description of Constituent + 2022-05-23 rdfs:labels added (automatically) + + Christian Chiarcos, chiarcos@uni-potsdam.de + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + introduced to account for DCR space, etc. + + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1425 + + Property attached to a given inflected form that usually permits to distinguish this form from the generic lemmatised form of the word. + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1425) + + + + + + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1376 (referent type) + + Type of concrete object or concept (the referent) that an expression represents (the reference). + (DFKI; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1376) + + referent type + + + + + distinguishes for distal and proximal determiners, e.g., in Macedonian (MULTEXT-East, see http://purl.org/olia/mte/multext-east.owl#CliticDistalDeterminer and http://purl.org/olia/mte/multext-east.owl#CliticProximalDeterminer) + In many Indo-European languages, proximity is a relevant feature of pronominal systems (e.g., Macedonian proximal vs. distal determiners, cf. English this vs. that). + In several indigeneous languages of North America, proximity is represented by verbal agreement (then also known as obviation, e.g., Blackfoot third [proximal] and "fourth" [distal 3rd] person). + As defined here, proximity is considered a morphosyntactic feature, because it applies to morphosyntactic *markers* of proximity. + (Chiarcos) + + proximity + distance + obviation + + + + + intensity + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2197 + adopted from ILPOSTS, there a property of Adverb, Classifier, Demonstrative, Noun, Particle, Adposition, Quantifier, Verb, identified with http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2197 "intensity" + Applies to grammatical (morphosyntactic) markers of emphasis for languages where emphatic expressions are distinguished from non-emphatic forms. + In Irish Gaelic, for example, the unmarked personal pronouns (e.g., sé, é ‘he, him’) is distinguished from the emphatic pronoun (e.g., seisean, eisean ‘he, him’). + Beyond pronouns, also nouns can be emphatically marked, e.g., by adding a clitic reflexive element to them. (Mulkern 2007). + + (Ann E. Mulkern. Knowing who’s important: Relative discourse salience and Irish pronominal forms. In Nancy A. Hedberg and Ron Zacharski, editors, The Grammar-Pragmatics Interface: Essays in honor of Jeanette K. Gundel, pages 113–142. John Benjamins, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 2007.) + + Quality of being felt very strongly or having a strong effect (intensity, http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2197) + + emphasis + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-3031 + The category that encodes "whether the addressee (addressees) are included in or excluded from the set of referents which also contains the speaker". + + clusivity + + + + + + distinguishes specific and nonspecific determiners, e.g., in Klallam (Salish, see olia:SpecificArticle, olia:NonspecificArticle), or in Persian (http://purl.org/olia/mte/multext-east.owl#CliticSpecificDeterminer) + + "By ʻspecificʼ and ʻnon-specificʼ I intend the difference between the + two readings of English indefinites like (3): + + (3) Iʼm looking for a deer. + + In the specific reading there is a particular deer, say Bambi, that I am + looking for. In the non-specific reading I will be happy to find any deer. + Von Heusinger (2002) likes the test in English of inserting ʻcertainʼ after the + ʻaʼ to fix the specific reading. In either reading of (3) a deer is being + introduced as a new discourse referent. This is opposed to ʻdefiniteʼ which + requires a previous pragmatic instantiation as in ʻIʼm looking for the deer.ʼ + In English both the readings of (3) are indefinite. In Klallam, the specific + demonstratives are neither definite nor indefinite." + (Montler, Timothy. 2007. Klallam demonstratives. Papers ICSNL XLVII. The 42nd International Conference on Salish and Neighbouring Language, pp. 409-425. University of British Columbia Working Papers in Linguistics, Volume 20; on specific vs. nonspecific determiners in Klallam, a Salish language, http://montler.net/papers/KlallamDemons.pdf) + + specificity + genericity + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-3185 + isoCat ID: http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-3185 + Evidentiality denotes the basis that the speaker + has for claiming that the event has occurred (or is going to take place). + Appear to show a greater number of distinctions in the realis mood + (especially in the past tense) than the irrealis mood. [Bhat 1999: 63-64, + 70] + + + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1988 + + Classification indicating the relative level of language individually assigned to a lexeme or term or to a text type. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1988) + + register + + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1965 (frequency), http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1959 (dating) + + Frequency: The relative commonness with which a term occurs. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1965) + + Dating: Indication specifying whether the usage is old or modern. + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1959) + + + + + + + In EAGLES, Strength is a language-specific attribute for pronouns and determiners to characterize weak (reduced) and strong (full) forms (http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/annotate/node19.html#oav2av 20.11.06). + Here, it is extended to full and reduced adjective inflection in Slavic languages (cf. MULTEXT-East). May be renamed to ReductionFeature. + + + + + + true + Deprecated: reimplemented within SubordinatingConjunction taxonomy + The SubordType is in Eagles an additional language-specific attribute, applying to subordinating conjunctions only. (http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/annotate/node19.html#oav2u 17.11.06) + + + + + + verb form mood + mood + + Modality is a facet of illocutionary point or general intent of a speaker, + or a speaker's degree of commitment to the expressed proposition's believability, + obligatoriness, desirability or reality. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1427) + + The term „mood“ is used by some authors in the same sense as „modality“, while + others distinguish the two (...) using „mood“ to refer to the contrastive + grammatical expressions of different modalities, and thus reserving „modality“ + to refer to the meanings so expressed. >A grammatical category is related to + a variety of factors affecting the nature of a predication, such as factors include + factivity, certainty (evidentials), attitudes, speaker’s knowledge/beliefs/desires, + agent’s ability/volitionality, etc.; a set of distinctive forms used to express + modality (as verbal inflections or a set of auxiliarys, each signaling a modality). + (http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/proxy.php?port=8080&file=lido/servlet/Lido_Servlet Modus 14.05.07) + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1427 + + + + + + mood + modality + + Modality is a facet of illocutionary point or general intent of a speaker, + or a speaker's degree of commitment to the expressed proposition's believability, + obligatoriness, desirability or reality. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1427) + + The term „mood“ is used by some authors in the same sense as „modality“, while + others distinguish the two (...) using „mood“ to refer to the contrastive + grammatical expressions of different modalities, and thus reserving „modality“ + to refer to the meanings so expressed. >A grammatical category is related to + a variety of factors affecting the nature of a predication, such as factors include + factivity, certainty (evidentials), attitudes, speaker’s knowledge/beliefs/desires, + agent’s ability/volitionality, etc.; a set of distinctive forms used to express + modality (as verbal inflections or a set of auxiliarys, each signaling a modality). + (http://www.uni-erfurt.de/sprachwissenschaft/proxy.php?port=8080&file=lido/servlet/Lido_Servlet Modus 14.05.07) + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1427 + 2024-11-22 redefined as a SemanticFeature, for modality as a morphosyntactic concept, see MoodFeature + + + + + + + + agreement + PVAGR + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2188 + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-4973 + Agreement: Formal relationship whereby a word (or a sub-part of a word) requires a corresponding form of another word (or sub-part of a word) (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2188) + + PVAGR: agreement as shown (stem + affix) in inflected forms of a finite verb (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-4973) + + + + + + + http://purl.org/olia/mte/multext-east.owl#NumeralAgreementClass + In most Slavic languages, Numerals and Quantifiers involve specific agreement patterns, e.g., in Russian:<br/> + + (a) SingularQuantifier (MTE v4: Numeral/Class="definite1"): requires noun in nominative singular, e.g., один год "one year" + (b) PaucalQuantifier (MTE v4: Numeral/Class="definite234"): requires noun in genitive singular, e.g., два/три/четыре года "two/three/four years" + (c) PluralQuantifier (MTE v4: Numeral/Class="definite"):requires noun in genitive plural, e.g., пять/много/сколько/столько лет "five/many/how many/that many years"<br/> + + Bulgarian has done away with the distinction between 4 and 5, and generalised the 2-4 form to all numerals (and some other quantifiers), but the others generally keep it. Also Slovene has a living dual (both Sorbians likewise, but they haven't been MTEd).<br/> + + Some Czech feminine and neuter body parts have preserved dual forms, and if the noun is dual, so are its attributes (adjectives, pronouns). So 2 differs formally from 3-4. The corresponding agreement pattern is a DualQuantifier (MTE v4: Numeral/Class="definite2"). + (Ivan A. Derzhanski & Christian Chiarcos, http://purl.org/olia/mte/multext-east.owl#NumeralAgreementClass) + + + + + + + + aspect + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1242 + Category associated to verbs and referring to the way the grammar marks the duration or type of temporal activity. (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1242) + + Aspect is a grammatical category associated with verbs that expresses a temporal view of the event or state expressed by the verb. (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/glossaryoflinguisticterms/WhatIsAspect.htm 17.11.06) + +The in Eagles optional attribute Aspect is needed for Greek and Slavonic verbs. It corresponds also to the Past Simple/Imperfect distinction of Romance languages. (http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/annotate/node18.html#oav1av 17.11.06) + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1298 + + Grammatical category for the variation in form of nouns, pronouns, and any words agreeing + with them, depending on how many persons or things are referred to. + (www.wordreference.com/English/definition.asp?en=number 12; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1298) + + A grammatical number is a morphological category characterized by the expression of quantity + through inflection or agreement. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_number 17.11.06) + + + + + + + + + + generalization over PreferredEvaluative and PejorativeEvaluative in ISOcat + + + + + + + Represents the difference between countable and uncountable nouns, e.g., in English + EAGLES + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1902, extended to cover http://purl.org/olia/mte/multext-east.owl#Humanness + + The characteristic of a word indicating that in a given discourse community, its referent is considered to be alive or to possess a quality of volition or consciousness. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1902) + + animacy + + + + + + + + + + + Syntactic valency pertains to the number of syntactic arguments a verb requires. + Semantic valency pertains to the number of arguments of a semantic predicate. + If syntactic valency is greater than the semantic valency, an expletive pronoun may be used, + cf. van Valin and LaPolla (1997) on the distinction between syntactic valency and semantic valency. + + EAGLES + + + + + + + + In generative grammar, syntactic alternations of semantically equivalent utterances are explained by movement operations. + Even though alternative analyses have been proposed, we keep this conventional term to account for syntactic phenomena such as Raising and Control. + + Introduced as part of the lexinfo extension as a cover term for Raising and Control properties of (lexical entries of) syntactic verbs. + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2240 (reduplication type, no values given) + + type of reduplication + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2240) + + reduplication type + + + + + + + + The optional Eagles attribute Separability is relevant for German compound verbs ("fängt ...an", "anfangen") and also to phrasal verbs in Danish and English. +(http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/annotate/node18.html#oav1c 15.11.06) + + + The grammatical person is deictic reference to the participant role of a referent, such as the speaker, the addressee, and others. Grammatical person typically defines a language's set of personal pronouns. It also frequently affects verbs, sometimes nouns, and possessive relationships as well. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_person 17.11.06) + + Indication of grammatical person (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) associated with a given inflected form. + (ISO12620; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1328) + + + + + + + morphosyntactic category + part of speech + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1345 + partOfSpeech: Term used to describe how a particular word is used in a sentence. (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1345) + "extended" EAGLES + +- saubere Definitionen statt form-basierter Zusammenlegung von Kategorien + +- VerbalNoun in der Schnittmenge von NonfiniteVerb und CommonNoun +- Classifier zunächst als top-level-konzept +- AuxiliaryVerb aufgespalten in StrictAuxiliarVerb, ModalVerb, Copula +- neues Konzept Quantifier, da jedoch eher semantisch als syntaktisch definiert, mit Numeral zu einem neuen top-level-node zusammengefasst (entsprechend die Definbition bei Bußmann: Quantor enthält ausdrücklich Numerale, diverse Determinierer und Pronomen) + + => sfb:PRONQUANT -> eagles:Quantifier & eagles:PronounOrDeterminer & !eagles:Numeral + sfb:PRONQUANT_AT -> eagles:Quantifier & eagles:IndefiniteDeterminer & !eagles:Numeral + sfb:PRONQUANT_SU -> eagles:Quantifier & eagles:IndefinitePronoun & !eagles:Numeral + => Numeral als Subkonzept von Quantifier + TODO: saubere definition statt form-baseierten kategorien + + + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1415 + + + + + Terminal nodes of syntactic annotations, termed "Word" here, are the same structural entities that are subject to morphosyntactic (Part of Speech) annotations. + + cf. http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1415 "word": Linguistic unit composed of at least a part of speech and a lemma. + + + + + + SyntacticWord is the class of syntactic units occupying the lowest position in + a syntactic construction. They are the largest units resistant to insertion of + new constituents within their boundaries; or they are the smallest constituents + that can be moved within a sentence without making the sentence ungrammatical. + (http://www.linguistics-ontology.org/gold/2008/SyntacticWord) + + Linguistic unit composed of at least a part of speech and a lemma. + (Gil Francopoulo; http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1415) + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1415, cf. GOLD SyntacticWord + word + + + + + + + + + + + + In syntactic theory, a constituent is a unit of words that constitute a unit of multiple independent words. Formally, this can be illustrated by substitution (and other tests): + "[The dog] bit Peter.": valid, "the dog" can be replaced by "lions" (etc.). + "*The [dog bit] Peter.": non-valid, there is no valid one-word replacement for "dog bit". + "The dog [bit Peter].": valid, "bit Peter" can be replaced by "slept" (etc.) + + Note that OLiA takes a theory-independent stance on "constituent". Constituent thus does not necessarily refer to a syntactic constituent, but to a node in syntax annotation that contains other nodes. This includes elements whose constituency has been debated (verb phrases), but also elements that are (potentially incomplete) phrase candidates (chunks). + (Christian Chiarcos) + + + + + + + + + + + Modelled like tokens, Santorini (1991, Â§4.2), Bies (1995, Â§2.3, Â§2.5) + added in accordance with PTB bracketing guidelines ,Santorini (1991, Â§4.2), Bies (1995, Â§2.3, Â§2.5) + + + verb tense + tense + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-4964 + verb tense: property referring to the way the grammar marks (via affixes and/or suppletion) the time at which the action denoted by the verb took place. (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-4964) + + Tense is a grammatical category, typically marked on the verb, that deictically refers to the time of the event or state denoted by the verb in relation to some other temporal reference point. (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/glossaryoflinguisticterms/WhatIsTense.htm 17.11.06) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Morphosyntactic and morphological features. + + + + + + + The voice of a verb describes the relationship between the action (or state) that the verb expresses and the participants identified by its arguments (subject, object, etc.). (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_voice 17.11.06) + 2024-11-22 redefined as SyntacticFeature (was MorphoyntacticFeature) + + + + + The term gender refers to various forms of expressing biological or sociological gender by inflecting words. Nouns, pronouns, articles and the adjectives denote the gender of their referent. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammatical_gender 17.11.06) + + Category based on (depending on languages) the natural distinction between sex and formal criteria. + (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1297) + + + + + InflectionType is in Eagles an optional attribute for adjectives. Weak and Strong are values for adjectival inflection in the Germanic languages German, Dutch and Danish. (http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/annotate/node18.html#oav1av 14.11.06) + + + true + Deprecated: reimplemented as subhierarchy of CoordinatingConjunction + The CoordType attribute subclassifies coordinating conjunctions. (http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/annotate/node18.html#oav1av 17.11.06) + + + + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1926 + definiteness + In grammatical theory, definiteness is a feature of noun phrases, distinguishing between entities which are specific and identifiable in a given context (definite noun phrases) and entities which are not (indefinite noun phrases). +(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definiteness 02.05.07) + + Property about the possiblity to identify an entity. (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1926) + +An in Eagles additional language-specific attribute for nouns/ noun phrases is Definiteness. +(http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/annotate/node19.html#oav2 16.11.06) + + + + + + + + + + + Note that olia_system:LinguisticAnnotation, olia_system:UnitOfAnnotation and olia_system:Feature pertain to the usage of type labels and annotated features according to a particular annotation scheme, whereas, here, category and feature mean linguistic concepts. Thus, an olia:MorphosyntacticCategory (etc.) is not necessarily represented by a olia_system:UnitOfAnnotation. + The OLiA ontology specifies linguistic concepts on a theoretical basis, as for concepts used in annotations, see system.owl. +There is a great extent of overlap between LinguisticCategories/LinguisticFeatures and Categories/Features as defined in system.owl. + + + degree + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1419 + Property concerning comparison. (http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1419) + + The Eagles-recommended attribute Degree applies only to inflectional comparatives and superlatives. In some languages, e.g. Spanish, the number of such adjectives is very small. (http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/annotate/node17.html#recn) + + + + + The optional attribute Reflexivity is applied to main verbs in French, German, Dutch, etc., and determines the selection of "avoir" or "être", etc., as auxiliary for the Perfect. +(http://www.ilc.cnr.it/EAGLES96/annotate/node18.html#oav1c 15.11.06) + + + + Case is a grammatical category determined by the syntactic or semantic function of a noun or pronoun. The term case has traditionally been restricted to apply to only those languages which indicate certain functions by the inflection of nouns, pronouns, or noun phrase constituents, such as adjectives and numerals. (http://www.sil.org/linguistics/glossaryoflinguisticterms/WhatIsCase.htm 17.11.06) + + + + + In linguistics, a theta role or θ-role is the semantic role a noun + phrase plays in a sentence. The term Thematic role denotes the same + concept. As such it is a semantic rather than a syntactic feature, in + contrast to such notions as the subject of a sentence or a + prepositional object. + (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subject_(linguistics). + + Originally, semantic roles were referred to as "case roles", leading to + an unfortunate name clash with grammatical case (e.g. in GOLD CaseValue) + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + classification of sentences according to their function, e.g., illocutionary act + + + + + + Bies et al 1995 + + Relation to be used when the syntactic function of a constituent is different from its morphosyntactic type, + cf. FormFunctionDiscrepancy in the PTB bracketing guidelines, Bies et al. (1995, §2.2.1) + + + + + + + + introduced for relation labels such as homonym. These label relations holding between two lexemes. + + + + + Traditionally, "grammatical relations" or "grammatical roles" are specifically those between the verb (clause) and its arguments/adjunct/complementizer. + In modern corpus research, however, a broad variety of relations between nominal heads, their arguments, modifiers, etc. are distinguished and the scope of "Grammatical Relation" has extended here to cover these as well. + (http://purl.org/linguistics/gold/syntacticRole) + + + Syntactic constructions that involve multiple constituents, or that are independent of the concept of constituent, e.g., word order phenomena, non-canonical sentences , ... + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + agreement feature + + + animacy feature + + + aspect feature + + + case feature + + + clusivity feature + + + constituent + + + coord type feature + + + countability feature + + + definiteness feature + + + degree feature + + + dependency relation + + + discourse entity + + + discourse feature + + + dominance relation + + + emphasis feature + + + evaluative feature + + + evidentiality feature + + + gender feature + + + inflection type feature + + + lexical relation + + + linguistic concept + + + modality feature + + + mood feature + + + morphological category + + + morphological feature + + + morphological process + + + morphosyntactic category + + + morphosyntactic feature + + + movement feature + + + narrative type + + + null element + + + number feature + + + numeral agreement class + + + orthographic entity + + + person feature + + + phonological process + + + polarity feature + + + proximity feature + + + reduplication type feature + + + referent type feature + + + reflexivity feature + + + register feature + + + semantic feature + + + semantic role + + + semantic unit + + + sentence type feature + + + separability feature + + + specificity feature + + + strength feature + + + subord type feature + + + syntactic category + + + syntactic construction + + + syntactic feature + + + syntactic function + + + syntactic relation + + + syntactic role + + + tense feature + + + topological field + + + usage and frequency feature + + + valency feature + + + voice feature + + + word + + + diff --git a/modularized/system.owl b/modularized/system.owl new file mode 100644 index 0000000..034df57 --- /dev/null +++ b/modularized/system.owl @@ -0,0 +1,231 @@ + + + + OLiA core concepts for linguistic annotations. + + + 2008-01-13 created + 2010-04-06 removed deprecated Category (equiv UnitOfAnnotation) category + 2010-04-14 added AnnotationProcess (cf. DCR process directory) + 2011-07-15 replaced base url by purl + 2011-07-27 added hasTagMatching with full support for XSLT-style regular expressions + 2013-06-27 added ISOcat reference for LinguisticAnnotation + 2022-05-23 rdfs:labels added (automatically) + + Christian Chiarcos, chiarcos@uni-potsdam.de + + TODO: LinguisticAnnotation disjoint + + + Linguistic annotations pertain to either structural entities (words, tokens, constituents, sentences => UnitOfAnnotation), relations between these (dependency, dominance, coreference, etc. => Relation), or grammatical features attached to these (case, gender, number, agreement, tense, mood, aspect, ... => Feature). + http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-1857 + label: Text attached to an element + + + + + A UnitOfAnnotation is a structural entity that can be annotated, e.g., a word, token, constituent, or another types of markable. +Word classes, etc., are then modelled as indirect children of UnitOfAnnotation. The division between Features and classes of UnitsOfAnnotation follows conventional standards. + + + + + + + UnitsOfAnnotation and Relations can be described in a more detailed way by the features that are attached to them, e.g., case, number, or aspect. Features are, however, not subject to further annotations (by means of hasFeature), they are thus disjoint from Relations and UnitsOfAnnotation. + + + + + + + + + + 1 + + + + + + 1 + + + + + Between instances of two Categories, a Relation can be established that links these together, e.g., a dominance relation (constituent X is grammatical subject of sentence Y), a dependency relation (token X is a modifier of token Y), a discourse relation (discourse unit X is in contrast to discourse unit Y), an anaphoric relation (referring expression X is coreferent with referring expressing Y), an alignment relation (word X expresses the same meaning as word Y). +Note that Relation and UnitOfAnnotation are not disjoint, because in some approaches, establishing a Relation between two concepts entails that a structural entity is formed, consisting of Relation and the Categories connected by the Relation, e.g., in Rhetorical Structure Theory (Mann and Thompson 1987). + + + + + 1 + + + + + + + + + + + 1 + + + + + + + A Relation is a directed edge between a source and a target concept. + + + A Relation is a directed edge between a source and a target concept. + + + + + + A UnitOfAnnotation or a Relation can carry Features that express annotations attached to them. By convention, (tags that represent) Features can be linked with Feature individuals, as well. Because of this reflexivity, a predicate like hasDegree(positive) allows to retrieve the individual positive as well. (This is necessary if positive represents a tag on its own, rather than being a property of a complex tag.) + + + + + + + Assigns a Linguistic Annotation a String representation, e.g., a particular Part of Speech tag, the respective abbreviation of the grammatical cases used in an annotation scheme, etc. +implicit semantics: hasTag is to be used if the tag is equal to the string value, otherwise use hasTagContaining, hasTagStartingWith, hasTagEndingWith + + + As opposed to hasTag proper, the string representation defines a substring of a concrete annotation. +The respective linguistic annotation then applies to every element whose annotation (tag) contains this substring. + + + As opposed to hasTag proper, the string representation specifies only the beginning of a concrete annotation. +The respective linguistic annotation then applies to every element whose annotation (tag) startsWith this substring. + + + + + + + As opposed to hasTag proper, the string representation defines the final subsequence of a concrete annotation. +The respective linguistic annotation then applies to every element whose annotation (tag) ends with this substring. + + + + hasTagMatching is a subproperty of hasTag, so that results can be retrieved if the regular expression match is requested, but an exact value with reserved characters is defined + + hasTagMatching allows to provide regular expressions as those used in XSLT and XPath, see http://www.w3.org/TR/xquery-operators/#func-matches + + + + Assigns a linguistic annotation a string representation of the annotation layer ("tier", "level") where it is to be found, e.g., "pos" for Part of Speech annotation, "gloss" for linguistic glosses, etc. + + + + + + + DCR annotation and editing operations ignored, e.g., add first vowel http://www.isocat.org/datcat/DC-2199 + + categories for annotation and editing operations added to account for the "Processes" profile in the DCR + + + + + + + + annotation process + + + feature + + + has feature + + + has source + + + has tag containing + + + has tag ending with + + + has tag matching + + + has tag + + + has tag starting with + + + has target + + + has tier + + + linguistic annotation + + + relation + + + unit of annotation + + + +