Review of AMR Checker lists about amr-guidelines

[mgeorgescu]

Hi Ulf,

Less urgent for the current delivery.
A couple of questions:

1. If we have other suggestions for the Checker lists, should we communicate by e-mail or list them under this issue?
   Some cases for mappings:

• right to > entitle-01
• "in return" > exchange-01
• in accordance with > comply-01
• is due to > suppose-02
• (so) what if > supose-01
• opposition > oppose-01
• vision > envision-01
• fraud > defraud-01

We also have some suggestions for types of issues that the Checker might help us spot and currently does not:

• Extra content in AMR as opposed to source sentence
• Check for :op "-" (as based on our decision, we will not represent the dash on a separate :op, however, when the annotators copy the NE, due probably to tokenization, the hyphenated word is not represented on a single :op and they overlook this).
• Isolated constructions with no substructure but which should have a substructure (leftovers due to hesitations, which the annotators don't corrrect)
  e.g. (a / and) --> not followed by anything
• check for coreference in case of repeated NEs
  It would be nice if the checker catches cases of co-reference that have not been annotated correctly, i.e. by using the variable.
  E.g.
  Thai Government has indicated Thailand will join the pact .
• check for all nationalities to be mapped to the country name
  e.g.
  

1. Would it be possible to have all these rules that you have created for the checker implemented as suggestions? These would be of great help to the annotators and would theoretically prevent them from making mistakes.
2. We have noticed some inconsistencies between the tool suggestions and the checker alarms.

One such example is "suspicious" (the tool suggestion is to use "suspect-01" . If the annotator uses "suspect-01" the Checker will identify this as a word not annotated.)
Should we collect these instances and report them?