Deleting one ancestor of a reentrant variable causes loss of dependent information about amr-guidelines

[uhermjakob]

OK, I see. Probably not the most desirable effect in this case.

Short-term advice: "manually" rescue sub-structure before deleting super-structure.

[nschneid]

Similarly:

(s / say-01
      :ARG0 (h / he)
      :ARG1 (p / possible
            :domain (g / give-01
                  :ARG0 (p2 / person :name (n / name :op1 "Your" :op2 "Majesty"))
                  :ARG1 h)
            :condition (w / wish-01
                  :ARG0 p2
                  :ARG1 (o2 / obey-01
                        :ARG1 p2
                        :manner (p3 / prompt)))
            :domain (o / order-01
                  :ARG0 p2
                  :ARG1 h
                  :ARG2 (t / thing
                        :mod (r2 / reasonable)))))

== del p2 ==>

(s / say-01
      :ARG0 (h / he)
      :ARG1 (p / possible
            :domain (g / give-01
                  :ARG1 h)
            :condition (w / wish-01
                  :ARG0 (p2 / person)
                  :ARG1 (o2 / obey-01
                        :ARG1 p2
                        :manner (p3 / prompt)))
            :domain (o / order-01
                  :ARG0 p2
                  :ARG1 h
                  :ARG2 (t / thing
                        :mod (r2 / reasonable)))))

(now none of the p2 uses have a concept)

[uhermjakob]

Actually, in your example above, the first of the three remaining p2 (:ARG0 of wish-01) does pick up the concept "person", as designed.

[nschneid]

Ah yes, what I should have said is that the name is lost.

[uhermjakob]

There are several alternatives as to what in a graph a delete operation should apply to.
The AMR Editor will not always be able to predict what deletion scope the annotator has in mind.
The current policy is:

• Delete the specified node and everything under it as visually displayed.
• If you want to re-use all or part of it, move it.
• When you use the "delete" button and then your mouse as a pointer, the tool will highlight in red what will be deleted when you click at that location.

A more minimum deletion of just a node or link would be an alternative. But if the annotator wants to delete a more substantial part of the AMR, he/she might have to perform several deletions.

Example: "He lost his leg in an accident."

(l / lose-02
   :ARG0 (h / he)
   :ARG1 (l2 / leg
              :part-of h)
   :ARG1-of (c / cause-01
                 :ARG0 (a / accident)))

== del l2 ==>

(l / lose-02
   :ARG0 (h / he)
   :ARG1-of (c / cause-01
               :ARG0 (a / accident)))

== instead, hypothetical "minimal" del l2 ==>

(l / lose-02
   :ARG0 (h / he
             :part (l2 / leg))
   :ARG1-of (c / cause-01
                :ARG0 (a / accident)))

[nschneid]

I think I'd prefer the more conservative behavior. But under the current behavior, how would I move the dependent information before deleting the variable? In the Your Majesty case, I can't say p2 :name n- because n is already under p2, right?