Role for ordinal numbers? about amr-guidelines

[uhermjakob]

I agree that it would make a lot of sense. Something like :ord has been on our mental to-do list for a while.

It would require numerous changes. Estimate: about 200 occurrences of first, second, third, ...
The AMR Checker could help identify likely AMRs to be modified.

A few details to be worked out include how to deal with ordinal-like cardinals:

• chapter 5 (= fifth chapter?)
• platform 7 (= seventh platform? - but what about platform 7b?)
  Special constructions:
• the very first transmission (attachment of "very"?)
• at first (:time at-first ?)
• when I first met her (= first time?)
• He was the first to do this. (= first person?)

[nschneid]

The line between name and number is not always clear for examples like "platform 7". When there is a specifically established designation for something I'm inclined to view it as more of a name, even if some sort of scale/ordering is used to organize the names.

We are using :li only for explicit list markers in the text, correct? Should we distinguish between textual lists, conceptual lists, and other scales/relations (e.g., time) that might involve ordinals?

Perhaps we ought to come up with something that mirrors AMR's treatment of comparatives and subsets, both of which involve a relation between something and its alternatives or counterparts. (Consider: the 3rd most intelligent of the 9 cats)

[kevincrawfordknight]

I have not completely read everything here, but this seems like a good idea for AMR 1.5.

[mgeorgescu]

What if we have bigger ordinals like 259th - do we spell out the number, even if it's rather long? What about 2345th?
In this case, it's quite cumbersome to spell them out.

[uhermjakob]

OK, based on a proposal by Natalie, the AMR workshop participants today adopted this new construction for ordinals:

the second planet

(p / planet
  :ord (o / ordinal-entity :value 2))

our first visit in 10 years

(v / visit-01
  :ARG0 (w / we)
  :ord (o / ordinal-entity 
         :value 1
         :range (t / temporal-quantity 
                  :quant 10
                  :unit (y / year))))

We sat in the preantepenultimate pew.

(s / sit-01
  :ARG1 (w / we)
  :ARG2 (p / pew
          :ord (o / ordinal-entity :value "-4")))

[mgeorgescu]

Shall we then start using this and attempt to correct instances of :ord for the July delivery? Or shall we attempt to correct these instances after the July delivery for the September one?

We would be more in favor of the latter - but please advise. We probably cannot do it by July 24.
Or are you planning to attempt an automatic correction?

[kevincrawfordknight]

madalina, we're not implementing the new :ord for this release. kevin

On 7/22/2013 12:22 AM, mgeorgescu wrote:

Shall we then start using this and attempt to correct instances of
:ord for the July delivery? Or shall we attempt to correct these
instances after the July delivery for the September one?

We would be more in favor of the latter - but please advise. We
probably cannot do it by July 24.
Or are you planning to attempt an automatic correction?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#8 (comment)
Bug from
https://github.com/notifications/beacon/rwKnZecEA4TCfSMrcy1ztZZPopFv5tl092Ij9JBRq0FOb9iCAZBEIgRnDuPBQOvc.gif

[cbonial]

Now that we have this issue settled with the ordinal proposal, could we have a place in the guidelines where the full options and definitions of each item within ord are defined? For example:

:ord ordinal-entity
:value value-interval (definition of what this is)
:op1 (bottom end of interval)
:op2 (top end of interval)
:range (definition of what this is)
:quant

[uhermjakob]

I just greatly expanded the AMR Editor help page for ordinals: http://www.isi.edu/~ulf/amr/lib/popup/ordinal.html