Guidelines and annotation docs have different lists of reified concepts

[goodmami]

The list of reified concepts at https://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/roles.html has 7 relation-concept pairs that are not in the list at https://github.com/amrisi/amr-guidelines/blob/master/amr.md#reification:

Relation	Concept
:cost	cost-01
:employed-by	have-org-role-91
:li	have-li-91
:meaning	mean-01
:ord	have-ord-91
:role	have-org-role-91
:superset	include-91

There is also one pair in the guidelines that's not in the docs:

Relation	Concept
:value	have-value-91

Should we consider the union of the two lists as the full set?

edit: removed :time and :topic from the first table as they do in fact exist in both places

[nschneid]

@ULFULF can confirm but I believe the annotation docs are more up-to-date than the guidelines.

have-value-91 occurs in only one release AMR (in the BioAMR corpus).

[uhermjakob]

Thanks for pointing this out. Some of these pairs are valid role/reification pairs, some "roles" are only shortcuts.

Valid AMR role/reification pairs:

• :li have-li-91
• :ord have-ord-91
• :time be-temporally-at-91
• :topic concern-02
• :value have-value-91 (exceedingly rare; just added to https://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/roles.html)

Not valid AMR roles; used only as shortcuts in the AMR Editor:

• :cause cause-01
• :cost cost-01
• :employed-by have-org-role-91
• :meaning mean-01
• :role have-org-role-91
• :subset include-91
• :superset include-91

Note: The shortcuts' purpose is to make life easier for human AMR annotators. The AMR Editor automatically and instantly expands these shortcuts from pseudo-roles to their AMR reifications.
So the shortcuts will not appear in the AMR corpus.

In the table at the bottom of https://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/roles.html these were marked as shortcuts
by being colored grey and indicating the "shortcut" nature upon mouse-over. Probably not obvious enough, so I now explicitly mark them as "shortcut only".

Updated: https://github.com/amrisi/amr-guidelines/blob/master/amr.md, https://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/roles.html

[goodmami]

Great, thank you for clarifying and for updating the docs and guidelines. While we're on the subject, here are a few more things I noticed (after originally filing this issue):

• It appears that the arguments of :accompanier are backwards (should be domain=ARG1 and range=ARG0, I think). I only checked the argument order of a few roles, so there may be other occurrences.
• :beneficiary has two reifications in the docs (benefit-01 and receive-01) but only one in the guidelines
• While many(roles)-to-one(concept) mappings seem unambiguous because they select different arguments (such as :subset and :superset), the one-to-many mappings (:beneficiary and :poss) are ambiguous. In other words, if the two concepts (benefit-01/receive-01 and have-03/own-01) have different meanings, then there is information loss when collapsed to a relation and information needed for reification. Are there guidelines for dealing with these, or is it just up to the annotators intuition about which to use?

[goodmami]

4.5 years later... My question above about :accompanier was resolved in #269 along with :example. Similarly, :poss was addressed in #262.

I'm not sure about the receive-01 reification of :beneficiary. I've been mapping it with domain=ARG2 and range=ARG0 following this frame: https://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/ontonotes-4.0-frames/receive-v.html.

I'll close this issue.