fixed underspecified locations in semantics #58
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dlazesz
added a commit
to dlazesz/verbnet
that referenced
this pull request
May 15, 2025
From: cu-clear#58
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In rare cases, the '?' is missing in a frame's semantics. For example, if we look at "I put the book on/under/near the table." in put-9.1.xml, we can see that e1 has_location Initial_Location. This is incorrect as the book's initial location is not specified. My edit follows example (7) in Brown et al, 2022, "Semantic Representations for NLP Using VerbNet and the Generative Lexicon". The '?' is present in the paper (example 7). For ease, this paper can be found here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frai.2022.821697/full