Question about multiple restrictions

[chaitanyamalaviya]

Hi,

I noticed that some classes in VerbNet have multiple selectional restrictions on a role with a logical AND, which I'm guessing means both restrictions are required for the role. However, some of these confusing to me. For example, withdraw-82 has Agent [ +animate & +organization ] but I'm not sure how the agent can be both animate and an organization. Same goes for pay-68, enforce-63. Could you please clarify how to interpret these annotations?

Also, I'm wondering if the correct interpretation of a logical OR between restrictions is that of an XOR operation. That only one of them can be true for an instance?

Thanks!

[ghamzak]

Hi, the logical OR between restrictions is an XOR.
About the AND logical operator, that's what the UVI demonstrates. The XML basis for that is that there are more than one restrictions and that there is no logical operator explicitly mentioned. This shows inconsistency in creating the XML files, because, as you correctly noticed, there are cases where the no explicit operator in the XML files should in reality be an XOR (e.g. enforce-63), and there are cases where it should be an AND (e.g. wipe_instr-10.4.2). I'll consult with the project team and find someone to hand-correct these. Thank you for your attention.

[chaitanyamalaviya]

Thank you for helping out with correcting these.

I had a follow-up question about the interpretation of + and - values placed on a restriction.
When a + restriction is placed on a role, does that mean it is - for all other restrictions in VerbNet?
For eg, with assessment-34.1, this would mean that the agent can only be animate, when it seems to me like the agent can be an organization too.

[ghamzak]

In general, selectional restrictions are not restrictions, strictly speaking. They are more like strong tendencies. So, if the agent in assessment-34.1 is +animate, it by no means restricts the agent to be +animate, but statistically, +animate agents should occur more frequently. In the particular case of assessment-34.1, however, I think +organization could be added to the list, as I believe an organization is a prototypical assessor.

[chaitanyamalaviya]

That makes sense, thanks!
In the selectional restriction hierarchy on slide 6 here, do the restrictions propagate to a node's ancestors? For eg, if we had patient [+comestible], would the patient also be [+phys_obj] and [+concrete]?

Also, where can I find a description of the selectional restrictions present in VerbNet and their updated hierarchy?

Thanks for your help!

[chaitanyamalaviya]

Hi @ghamzak, just wanted to reach out about this again. I was just looking for a description of the selectional restrictions (how each one is defined, how they were annotated) and the latest selectional restriction hierarchy. If you happen to know a relevant resource, that would be really helpful.