Talk:Treebank

[Untitled]
This page should be revised. Many links that point system are either broken or the systems are now defunct.

Janburse (talk) 13:12, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Links to the Penn (Treebank) project work, but those pages seems to be abandoned. Penn represents lots of work and I would like to know if there is some successor to that work.--Lbeaumont (talk) 18:51, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The page badly needs some example with explanation. For instance, the John loves Mary example is fine, but really needs an explanation of what are S, NP, etc., and how it got broken up that way. Those of us who aren't familiar with the system aren't given enough information.MikeR613 (talk) 16:45, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semantic Treebanks
Should be substantially revised. The shallow/deep differentiation must be defined on the basis of adequate literature reference. In the current way, it is almost nonsensical, as PropBank and AMR differ not in their depth (interpretability in terms of a logical framework) but in their coverage (AMR extends PropBank in producing a connected graph, with respect to semantic roles, they are identical.) In particular, a logical interpretation is not possible for AMRs as they do not represent quantifier scope. Likewise, UCCA is about as shallow as AMR (both basically provide semantic supertags for syntactic relations). GMB can be regarded as "deep" in the sense that the underlying *theory* includes a mapping to predicate logic -- and DRT actually *is* a theory of scope. However, not sure to what this extend this was actually operationalized in the annotation. In particular, their annotation of discourse relations is inspired by SDRT (and a solid theory), but in practice seems still to be based on matching of cue phrases, so, at least for this aspect, this is semantic supertagging only, again. Chiarcos (talk) 19:34, 16 August 2020 (UTC)