It appears that you have Javascript disabled.
Please consider enabling Javascript for this page to see the visualizations.
Uppsala Group on Future of UD
Aitziber, Anders, Filip, Jan, Jenna, Tommi, Veronika, Zeljko
This group discussed possible extensions towards annotation of semantics.
Discussion covered the following topics:
- semantic roles: which ones, extent, representation
- word senses: which “ontology”, difficulties with IAA
- propbanking/valency
- conjunct propagation
- Named entities (wrt to existing annotation guidelines in UD)
- Grounding
- co-reference, information structure, discourse
- ellipsis / NULL element addition
- in view of preceding group discussions, especially MWE group, LVCs and idioms
- principles, minimal set of annotation to be called “semantic annotation”
Group-internal consensus:
- no change to current format and structure - if anything, must be “add-on” (only addition to current scheme and format)
- basis features to include in “UD Semantics 1.0”:
- exlicitly identified content words
- graph structure over content words, with conjunct propagated (“effective heads”)
- labeled relations on every “semantic” edge (~30 types: not semantic roles, but rather arguments as in propbank, plus non-argument relations as in PDT)
- LVCs and idioms annotated
- Named entities, labeled at least on “top level” hierarchy (~5-7 classes)
- NULL words: only positively defined
- WSD with caution (maybe not in UD Semantics 1.0 - which ontology??)
- something should be out by end of next year (process: survey of treebanks, guidelines, annotation)
- minimal set for a treebank to be considered as having semantic annotation: content words, all relations (with effective heads resolved), labels at least for verbs and their arguments
Report and discussion with all
- several concerns raised
- do “enhanced” things first
- named entities, LVCs, idioms perhaps the most pressing in terms of need?
- several non-group people expressed interest to contribute to the process