1,721,209 research outputs found
Separating Argument Structure from Logical Structure in AMR
Full text linkThe AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation) formalism for representing meaning of natural language sentences puts emphasis on predicate-argument structure and was not designed to deal with scope and quantifiers. By extending AMR with indices for contexts and formulating constraints on these contexts, a formalism is derived that makes correct predictions for inferences involving negation and bound variables. The attractive core predicate-argument structure of AMR is preserved. The resulting framework is similar to the meaning representations of Discourse Representation Theory employed in the Parallel Meaning Bank
Separating Argument Structure from Logical Structure in AMR
Full text linkThe AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation) formalism for representing meaning of natural language sentences puts emphasis on predicate-argument structure and was not designed to deal with scope and quantifiers. By extending AMR with indices for contexts and formulating constraints on these contexts, a formalism is derived that makes correct predictions for inferences involving negation and bound variables. The attractive core predicate-argument structure of AMR is preserved. The resulting framework is similar to the meaning representations of Discourse Representation Theory employed in the Parallel Meaning Bank
Separating Argument Structure from Logical Structure in AMR
Full text linkThe AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation) formalism for representing meaning of natural language sentences puts emphasis on predicate-argument structure and was not designed to deal with scope and quantifiers. By extending AMR with indices for contexts and formulating constraints on these contexts, a formalism is derived that makes correct predictions for inferences involving negation and bound variables. The attractive core predicate-argument structure of AMR is preserved. The resulting framework is similar to the meaning representations of Discourse Representation Theory employed in the Parallel Meaning Bank
Separating Argument Structure from Logical Structure in AMR
Full text linkThe AMR (Abstract Meaning Representation) formalism for representing meaning of natural language sentences puts emphasis on predicate-argument structure and was not designed to deal with scope and quantifiers. By extending AMR with indices for contexts and formulating constraints on these contexts, a formalism is derived that makes correct predictions for inferences involving negation and bound variables. The attractive core predicate-argument structure of AMR is preserved. The resulting framework is similar to the meaning representations of Discourse Representation Theory employed in the Parallel Meaning Bank
DRS at MRP 2020: Dressing up Discourse Representation Structures as Graphs
Full text linkDiscourse Representation Theory (DRT) is a formal account for representing the meaning of natural language discourse. Meaning in DRT is modeled via a Discourse Representation Structure (DRS), a meaning representation with a model-theoretic interpretation, which is usually depicted as nested boxes. In contrast, a directed labeled graph is a common data structure used to encode semantics of natural language texts. The paper describes the procedure of dressing up DRSs as directed labeled graphs to include DRT as a new framework in the 2020 shared task on Cross-Framework and Cross-Lingual Meaning Representation Parsing. Since one of the goals of the shared task is to encourage unified models for several semantic graph frameworks, the conversion procedure was biased towards making the DRT graph framework somewhat similar to other graph-based meaning representation frameworks
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
- …
