Issue 279: Co-reference statement
Following the crm-sig decision about co reference statement in 32nd crm-sig meeting, Øyvind sent the following email on 4/5/2015
As a first step I have jotted down something about negation, in order to clarify if we can have one class for both positive and negative coref statements. My preliminary conclusion is that we cannot keep both as one class.
Thanks to Arianna who made some comments on an earlier draft that sharpened the argument, but no responsibility for the result.
I have it in a Google doc. It would be good if you were able to comment, criticise and develop further. I have shared it with anyone with a link.
The link is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/139NRyyzM5fg8dYFu4LbpNTrRiHQxPfPPGaNwjAAu2Ec/edit?usp=sharing
I have also made a work plan for the coref work; mostly for myself but I am happy to have comments on that one too.
The link is: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1EMmKjtdehCB5PzNhUWiTPL_tg6s9uKCkhXigmebXxW8/edit?usp=sharing
Posted by Oyvind on 19/5/2015
Please find proposals for new scope notes for a coref class, and in addition a non-coref class. The new scope note is an attempt to remove some of the complexity of the previous definition. The attached doc file shows the changes from the proposal presented in Oxford by traced changes.
Checking the minutes of 32nd meeting, it is realized that this issue has been opened by mistake. It is part of the isue 316. The above discussions are copied to the issue 316.
This issue is closed
September 5, 2017