From 4be8b6778551623e1c357ed9f0acd873a07c35c5 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Dan Zeman Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2023 22:58:39 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] Removed the comment by @Marketa-Lopatkova from entities.md and made it issue #3. --- doc/entities.md | 736 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------------ 1 file changed, 365 insertions(+), 371 deletions(-) diff --git a/doc/entities.md b/doc/entities.md index 3f5405d..eb3da3e 100644 --- a/doc/entities.md +++ b/doc/entities.md @@ -1,129 +1,123 @@ # Entities -**Entities** constitute one of the three main types of concepts in UMR, -alongside **states** and **processes.** They typically correspond to physical -objects, but there are also abstract entities such as _soul._ - -A _mention_ of an entity in text can be **specific** or **generic.** A -specific mention refers to a concrete, unique instance of the entity. Not -necessarily by its name (meaning that not every specific entity is a named -entity), but there is one specific instance that the speaker has in mind. - -In (1a), there are three mentions of the same specific entity, the unique -institution in Prague, called “National Museum”. It is first referred to by -its name, then by the personal pronoun _mu_, and finally by the common noun -_muzeum_. In contrast, the common noun _muzea_ (plural of _muzeum_) in (1b) -is a generic entity: It refers to various institutions that all belong to the -category of museums. +**Entities** constitute one of the three main types of concepts in UMR, +alongside **states** and **processes.** They typically correspond to physical +objects, but there are also abstract entities such as _soul._ + +A _mention_ of an entity in text can be **specific** or **generic.** A +specific mention refers to a concrete, unique instance of the entity. Not +necessarily by its name (meaning that not every specific entity is a named +entity), but there is one specific instance that the speaker has in mind. + +In (1a), there are three mentions of the same specific entity, the unique +institution in Prague, called “National Museum”. It is first referred to by +its name, then by the personal pronoun _mu_, and finally by the common noun +_muzeum_. In contrast, the common noun _muzea_ (plural of _muzeum_) in (1b) +is a generic entity: It refers to various institutions that all belong to the +category of museums. * (1a) [cs] _Národní muzeum v Praze získá nový bezpečnostní systém, který mu dodá firma CESS. Muzeum za něj zaplatí necelé 2 milióny korun._ “The National Museum in Prague will get a new security system, which will be supplied by CESS. The museum will pay almost 2 million crowns for it.” * (1b) [cs] _V každé zemi podléhají muzea jiné legislativě._ “In each country, museums are subject to different legislation.” -If a proper name is used, it typically refers to a specific entity, but as we -see in (1a), specific entities can be referenced by other means, too. Even if -the name were not present in the sentence, the context would tell us that we -are talking about one specific museum, which probably has a name, and perhaps -the context would be specific enough to allow us to identify the entity and -its name in the real world. However, that is not a necessary condition for a -specific entity. In (2a), _staršího muže_ “an elderly man” refers to a person -whom we do not know and who may not even exist in the real world (the text -may be a work of fiction). The man may not be mentioned again and we may not -learn anything else about him, yet in this local context he is a specific -entity and not a generic one. +If a proper name is used, it typically refers to a specific entity, but as we +see in (1a), specific entities can be referenced by other means, too. Even if +the name were not present in the sentence, the context would tell us that we +are talking about one specific museum, which probably has a name, and perhaps +the context would be specific enough to allow us to identify the entity and +its name in the real world. However, that is not a necessary condition for a +specific entity. In (2a), _staršího muže_ “an elderly man” refers to a person +whom we do not know and who may not even exist in the real world (the text +may be a work of fiction). The man may not be mentioned again and we may not +learn anything else about him, yet in this local context he is a specific +entity and not a generic one. * (2) [cs] _Když opouštěl budovu, zahlédl staršího muže, jenž nesl v náručí žlutou krabici._ “As he was leaving the building, he saw an elderly man carrying a yellow box in his arms.” -A specific entity is a **named entity** if it is referenced by its **name.** -Name is a word or a sequence of words whose purpose is to label a specific -instance, not to describe a category of entities by their properties or -relations to other entities. Thus _muzeum_ is not a name because it can be -used to refer to any institution that meets certain parameters. The phrase -_Národní muzeum_ is a name because it was specifically designed to label one -particular museum. - -> **proper name** ?= named entity (as "New Zealand" and "the United States of America")
-BUT "Zealand" or "America" are not proper names - why not?
-(confusing as Zealand is a Danish island and America may refer to the continent) - -> **proper noun** ?= common noun (as "museum") - -The name does not have to be unique: An important museum -in another country may also be called _Národní muzeum_, just like there are -multiple people called _John Smith_. People may have to add more information -if misinterpretation is possible, but the intended purpose of a name is to -give the entity a reasonably locally unique identifier, and the purpose is -what matters. - -Furthermore, it is not necessary that a specific entity has only one name. -For example, _Spojené státy americké_, _Spojené státy_, _USA_ and _Amerika_ -are all names and all refer to the same country. One can even encounter just -_Státy_ used as a name and referring to the USA. When used in a Czech -sentence in this manner, it cannot refer to, e.g., the United States of -Mexico. The same word, _státy_ “states” (not capitalized, unless -sentence-initial), can be used as a common noun (hence not a name), referring -to a group of entities (states or countries) that may be specific or generic. -On the other hand, depending on context, _Amerika_ may refer to a continent -rather than to a country (North America, South America), or it may refer to a -quarry southwest of Prague. - -Proper names are thus designed to label specific instances, while common -nouns are meant to describe broader categories (types). The borderline may be -occasionally blurry when a common noun is repurposed as a name (as we have -seen with _Státy_ above) but it is much less likely that a proper name will -be used for a generic entity. We can certainly define a category of all -people named _Václav_, as in (3), but that does not convert the name into a -common noun – all these people first got that name with the hope that it will -make them identifiable and distinguishable from other people, and only later -the speaker artificially grouped them, using their name as the property -defining the group. +A specific entity is a **named entity** if it is referenced by its **name.** +Name is a word or a sequence of words whose purpose is to label a specific +instance, not to describe a category of entities by their properties or +relations to other entities. Thus _muzeum_ is not a name because it can be +used to refer to any institution that meets certain parameters. The phrase +_Národní muzeum_ is a name because it was specifically designed to label one +particular museum. + +The name does not have to be unique: An important museum +in another country may also be called _Národní muzeum_, just like there are +multiple people called _John Smith_. People may have to add more information +if misinterpretation is possible, but the intended purpose of a name is to +give the entity a reasonably locally unique identifier, and the purpose is +what matters. + +Furthermore, it is not necessary that a specific entity has only one name. +For example, _Spojené státy americké_, _Spojené státy_, _USA_ and _Amerika_ +are all names and all refer to the same country. One can even encounter just +_Státy_ used as a name and referring to the USA. When used in a Czech +sentence in this manner, it cannot refer to, e.g., the United States of +Mexico. The same word, _státy_ “states” (not capitalized, unless +sentence-initial), can be used as a common noun (hence not a name), referring +to a group of entities (states or countries) that may be specific or generic. +On the other hand, depending on context, _Amerika_ may refer to a continent +rather than to a country (North America, South America), or it may refer to a +quarry southwest of Prague. + +Proper names are thus designed to label specific instances, while common +nouns are meant to describe broader categories (types). The borderline may be +occasionally blurry when a common noun is repurposed as a name (as we have +seen with _Státy_ above) but it is much less likely that a proper name will +be used for a generic entity. We can certainly define a category of all +people named _Václav_, as in (3), but that does not convert the name into a +common noun – all these people first got that name with the hope that it will +make them identifiable and distinguishable from other people, and only later +the speaker artificially grouped them, using their name as the property +defining the group. * (3) [cs] _Všichni Václavové by měli znát své slavné jmenovce._ “All Václavs should know their famous namesakes.” -While the use of _Václavové_ in (3) is unusual, there are proper names that -denote a type rather than an instance. A primary example is product names, as -in (4) (the specification of product category is enclosed in parentheses in -the example because it is optional): +While the use of _Václavové_ in (3) is unusual, there are proper names that +denote a type rather than an instance. A primary example is product names, as +in (4) (the specification of product category is enclosed in parentheses in +the example because it is optional): * (4) [cs] _Používám (prací prostředek) Persil._ “I use Persil (detergent).” -Clearly, _Persil_ is a proper name rather than a common noun, as it was -invented specifically to distinguish this detergent from other detergents; it -is not a common noun that we expect to find in dictionaries. However, the -name denotes a type of product, not one particular instance. There are -millions of packages of Persil, and they all share this name. And while the -name could be used when referring to a specific package, in (4) it actually -refers to a generic entity. We will use the term **categorial proper names / -categorial named entities** with names that denote types (categories) rather -than instances. +Clearly, _Persil_ is a proper name rather than a common noun, as it was +invented specifically to distinguish this detergent from other detergents; it +is not a common noun that we expect to find in dictionaries. However, the +name denotes a type of product, not one particular instance. There are +millions of packages of Persil, and they all share this name. And while the +name could be used when referring to a specific package, in (4) it actually +refers to a generic entity. We will use the term **categorial proper names / +categorial named entities** with names that denote types (categories) rather +than instances. ## Representation of entities in UMR -An entity that is referred to by a **common noun** is represented by a -regular concept (node), typically with the lemma of the noun as the label of -the concept (but occasionally the label may be a multi-word string). This is -done no matter if the entity is specific or generic. - -An entity that is referred to by a **name** is represented by an abstract -concept corresponding to the semantic class of the entity (e.g., “person” or -“organization”; see below for the taxonomy of semantic classes). The name of -the entity is in a separate node, which has the abstract concept “name” and -is attached to the class concept via the relation `:name`. Individual -orthographic words of the name are listed in the name concept each in its own -attribute, the attributes are named `:opX` where X is the ordinal number of -the word within the name. The words are not always exact copies from the -sentence, as the name is converted to its canonical form. Note however that -this does not mean that all words in the name are replaced by their lemmas; -some will be lemmatized, others will stay in a frozen inflected form. - -An entity that is referred to by a **pronoun** is represented by an abstract -concept corresponding to the semantic class of the entity. Unlike named -entities, there is no child node with the “name” concept. +An entity that is referred to by a **common noun** is represented by a +regular concept (node), typically with the lemma of the noun as the label of +the concept (but occasionally the label may be a multi-word string). This is +done no matter if the entity is specific or generic. + +An entity that is referred to by a **name** is represented by an abstract +concept corresponding to the semantic class of the entity (e.g., “person” or +“organization”; see below for the taxonomy of semantic classes). The name of +the entity is in a separate node, which has the abstract concept “name” and +is attached to the class concept via the relation `:name`. Individual +orthographic words of the name are listed in the name concept each in its own +attribute, the attributes are named `:opX` where X is the ordinal number of +the word within the name. The words are not always exact copies from the +sentence, as the name is converted to its canonical form. Note however that +this does not mean that all words in the name are replaced by their lemmas; +some will be lemmatized, others will stay in a frozen inflected form. + +An entity that is referred to by a **pronoun** is represented by an abstract +concept corresponding to the semantic class of the entity. Unlike named +entities, there is no child node with the “name” concept. Common noun _muzeum_ “museum”: ``` @@ -152,13 +146,13 @@ Named entity _Národní muzeum_ “National Museum”: :op6 "tělovýchovy")) ``` -Note that the canonical form of the multi-word name of the ministry in (5) is -composed of the canonical form of the head (_Ministerstvu_ was converted to -nominative singular, but its capitalization was retained) and the inflected -forms of the dependent words; the comma is also a separate `:opX` attribute. +Note that the canonical form of the multi-word name of the ministry in (5) is +composed of the canonical form of the head (_Ministerstvu_ was converted to +nominative singular, but its capitalization was retained) and the inflected +forms of the dependent words; the comma is also a separate `:opX` attribute. -With categorial named entities, the `:name` relation can occur even with a -generic entity: +With categorial named entities, the `:name` relation can occur even with a +generic entity: ``` (p/ product @@ -169,30 +163,30 @@ generic entity: ## Anchoring entities in ontologies -UMR defines the (optional) `:wiki` attribute, which can be used to link a -concept to a corresponding article in Wikipedia. The examples in the UMR -guidelines currently show names of English Wikipedia articles in these -attributes; however, a more robust and thus preferred solution is to use -Wikidata identifiers. They are not bound to a particular language mutation of -Wikipedia (all Wikipedias that have an article about the concept are linked -from the Wikidata page) and they should be more stable (e.g. when one of the -Wikipedias decides that a different title should be used for the article and -the old title should become a redirect). Obtaining Wikidata identifiers is -easy: Let's assume we want to anchor the Czech entity _Národní muzeum_ and we -find its article in the Czech Wikipedia at -[https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A1rodn%C3%AD_muzeum](https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A1rodn%C3%AD_muzeum). -In the menu on the right-hand side we see a link labeled “Položka Wikidat” -and leading to -[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q188112](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q188112). - -Although the attribute is optional in UMR, in our data we should strive to -provide it for every mention of a specific entity that has a Wikidata entry. -(In practice, we could use the coreference annotation in UMR to automatically -propagate the anchor from one mention to all other mentions. Note however -that it would be a mistake to say that we only fill the attribute manually -for named entities. It can happen that a specific entity is never mentioned -by its name in a document, yet the context doubtlessly points to a known -entity described in Wikipedia.) +UMR defines the (optional) `:wiki` attribute, which can be used to link a +concept to a corresponding article in Wikipedia. The examples in the UMR +guidelines currently show names of English Wikipedia articles in these +attributes; however, a more robust and thus preferred solution is to use +Wikidata identifiers. They are not bound to a particular language mutation of +Wikipedia (all Wikipedias that have an article about the concept are linked +from the Wikidata page) and they should be more stable (e.g. when one of the +Wikipedias decides that a different title should be used for the article and +the old title should become a redirect). Obtaining Wikidata identifiers is +easy: Let's assume we want to anchor the Czech entity _Národní muzeum_ and we +find its article in the Czech Wikipedia at +[https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A1rodn%C3%AD_muzeum](https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/N%C3%A1rodn%C3%AD_muzeum). +In the menu on the right-hand side we see a link labeled “Položka Wikidat” +and leading to +[https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q188112](https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q188112). + +Although the attribute is optional in UMR, in our data we should strive to +provide it for every mention of a specific entity that has a Wikidata entry. +(In practice, we could use the coreference annotation in UMR to automatically +propagate the anchor from one mention to all other mentions. Note however +that it would be a mistake to say that we only fill the attribute manually +for named entities. It can happen that a specific entity is never mentioned +by its name in a document, yet the context doubtlessly points to a known +entity described in Wikipedia.) ``` (o/ organization @@ -202,44 +196,44 @@ entity described in Wikipedia.) :op2 "muzeum")) ``` -If a specific entity has no Wikidata presence, we have to register it in a -local ontology that becomes part of the annotation, and provide a local -identifier instead. Note that the entries in the local ontology are not -always local to just one document. They are still part of the same universe -that is partially described in Wikipedia. Consider, for example, a news -article reporting that _A man (80) was killed this morning in a traffic -accident._ There could be several other documents reporting on the same -event, and if it can be established that they are indeed talking about the -same accident, then all the mentions of the nameless man should be anchored -to the same entry in the ontology. TODO: Implement a -prototype of the local ontology and specify how it should be linked from the -annotation. We should probably use a different attribute, e.g., -`:lwiki`. +If a specific entity has no Wikidata presence, we have to register it in a +local ontology that becomes part of the annotation, and provide a local +identifier instead. Note that the entries in the local ontology are not +always local to just one document. They are still part of the same universe +that is partially described in Wikipedia. Consider, for example, a news +article reporting that _A man (80) was killed this morning in a traffic +accident._ There could be several other documents reporting on the same +event, and if it can be established that they are indeed talking about the +same accident, then all the mentions of the nameless man should be anchored +to the same entry in the ontology. TODO: Implement a +prototype of the local ontology and specify how it should be linked from the +annotation. We should probably use a different attribute, e.g., +`:lwiki`. ## Other attributes of entities -Every entity concept should have the attribute `:ref-number`, with the value -reflecting the grammatical number. UMR defines a number of possible values -for the attribute, based on grammars of various languages. For Modern Czech -data the value will probably (almost?) always be `Singular` or `Plural`. We -will not use `Dual` just because we know that we are speaking about two -people. The dual as a grammatical number has mostly vanished from Czech, and -UMR has other means to annotate quantity (there is not a separate value of -`:ref-number` for each integer number). A possible exception in Modern Czech -is paired body parts _(nohy, ruce, oči, uši)_ because that is where -grammatical dual still survives. - -Abstract entity concepts that correspond to personal pronouns (or their -reflections in verbal morphology) will additionally have the attribute -`:ref-person`. This attribute is not used with other entity mentions (for -which it would be very unusual to interpret them as anything else than 3rd -person). - -We now repeat example (1a) as (6) here and show the annotations of entities -from the example, using all the rules specified so far. (We omit the monetary -entity from the end because such types of entities have not been discussed -yet.) +Every entity concept should have the attribute `:ref-number`, with the value +reflecting the grammatical number. UMR defines a number of possible values +for the attribute, based on grammars of various languages. For Modern Czech +data the value will probably (almost?) always be `Singular` or `Plural`. We +will not use `Dual` just because we know that we are speaking about two +people. The dual as a grammatical number has mostly vanished from Czech, and +UMR has other means to annotate quantity (there is not a separate value of +`:ref-number` for each integer number). A possible exception in Modern Czech +is paired body parts _(nohy, ruce, oči, uši)_ because that is where +grammatical dual still survives. + +Abstract entity concepts that correspond to personal pronouns (or their +reflections in verbal morphology) will additionally have the attribute +`:ref-person`. This attribute is not used with other entity mentions (for +which it would be very unusual to interpret them as anything else than 3rd +person). + +We now repeat example (1a) as (6) here and show the annotations of entities +from the example, using all the rules specified so far. (We omit the monetary +entity from the end because such types of entities have not been discussed +yet.) * (6) [cs] _Národní muzeum v Praze získá nový bezpečnostní systém, který mu dodá firma CESS. Muzeum za něj zaplatí necelé 2 milióny korun._ “The National Museum in Prague will get a new security system, which will be supplied by CESS. The museum will pay almost 2 million crowns for it.” @@ -286,14 +280,14 @@ yet.) ## Taxonomy of entity types -The [UMR -guidelines](https://github.com/umr4nlp/umr-guidelines/blob/master/guidelines.md) -give a taxonomy of entity classes, types and subtypes in [Section -3-1-2](https://github.com/umr4nlp/umr-guidelines/blob/master/guidelines.md#part-3-1-2-named-entities). -They can be used as abstract concepts for named entities and for entities -represented by pronouns. As of now (June 2023), the taxonomy is reportedly -under revision by the UMR team. At any rate, the current table has a number -of issues. Below we examine some of the entity types and discuss their +The [UMR +guidelines](https://github.com/umr4nlp/umr-guidelines/blob/master/guidelines.md) +give a taxonomy of entity classes, types and subtypes in [Section +3-1-2](https://github.com/umr4nlp/umr-guidelines/blob/master/guidelines.md#part-3-1-2-named-entities). +They can be used as abstract concepts for named entities and for entities +represented by pronouns. As of now (June 2023), the taxonomy is reportedly +under revision by the UMR team. At any rate, the current table has a number +of issues. Below we examine some of the entity types and discuss their utility. Some other resources: @@ -307,18 +301,18 @@ Some other resources: ### person -A top-level class without subordinate types and subtypes. Besides humans, the -class could serve as a natural fallback for human-like beings that do not -have a class of their own: deities, dwarves, hobbits, elves etc. What about -robots? +A top-level class without subordinate types and subtypes. Besides humans, the +class could serve as a natural fallback for human-like beings that do not +have a class of their own: deities, dwarves, hobbits, elves etc. What about +robots? ### animal -A top-level class. As a named entity, it can be used to represent a pet that -was given a name by its owner, or an animal character in a fairy tale, -including fantastic beasts like dragons. The class is not suitable to -represent _species_ of animals. (They have their own type in the taxonomy but -it is problematic, see below.) +A top-level class. As a named entity, it can be used to represent a pet that +was given a name by its owner, or an animal character in a fairy tale, +including fantastic beasts like dragons. The class is not suitable to +represent _species_ of animals. (They have their own type in the taxonomy but +it is problematic, see below.) ### plant @@ -326,264 +320,264 @@ Analogous to animals but covering plants. ### thing -Not listed in the current UMR table but used in their examples (e.g. sentence -(3) in Part 1) and clearly needed at least for pronouns that refer neither to -persons nor to animals or plants or other types specifically listed in the -taxonomy. +Not listed in the current UMR table but used in their examples (e.g. sentence +(3) in Part 1) and clearly needed at least for pronouns that refer neither to +persons nor to animals or plants or other types specifically listed in the +taxonomy. ### geographic-entity -A subset of what other named entity taxonomies often label as “location”. -This subset contains only phenomena created by nature, not by mankind. The -UMR guidelines currently provide 15 types belonging to this class, probably -not exhaustive and to be extended in the future. The annotators should use -the types as abstract concepts if they know them, otherwise they can fall -back to the whole class. +A subset of what other named entity taxonomies often label as “location”. +This subset contains only phenomena created by nature, not by mankind. The +UMR guidelines currently provide 15 types belonging to this class, probably +not exhaustive and to be extended in the future. The annotators should use +the types as abstract concepts if they know them, otherwise they can fall +back to the whole class. -The types are: `ocean`, `sea`, `lake`, `river`, `gulf`, `bay`, `strait`, -`island`, `peninsula`, `mountain`, `volcano`, `valley`, `canyon`, `desert`, -`forest`. +The types are: `ocean`, `sea`, `lake`, `river`, `gulf`, `bay`, `strait`, +`island`, `peninsula`, `mountain`, `volcano`, `valley`, `canyon`, `desert`, +`forest`. ### celestial-body -Like `geographic-entity` but on a cosmic scale. Currently four types: `moon`, -`planet`, `star`, `constellation`. Again not exhaustive: What do we do with -objects that are smaller than planets but are not moons? +Like `geographic-entity` but on a cosmic scale. Currently four types: `moon`, +`planet`, `star`, `constellation`. Again not exhaustive: What do we do with +objects that are smaller than planets but are not moons? -Note that for _Měsíc_ “Moon”, _Země_ “Earth” and _Slunce_ “Sun”, there is a -blurred context-based borderline between a name of a celestial body and a -common noun. But at least the Czech grammar puts the burden of decision on -the shoulders of the author: if it is a name of a celestial body, it has to -be written capitalized. So, unless it is the first word of a sentence, the -annotator can take capitalization as the cue. +Note that for _Měsíc_ “Moon”, _Země_ “Earth” and _Slunce_ “Sun”, there is a +blurred context-based borderline between a name of a celestial body and a +common noun. But at least the Czech grammar puts the burden of decision on +the shoulders of the author: if it is a name of a celestial body, it has to +be written capitalized. So, unless it is the first word of a sentence, the +annotator can take capitalization as the cue. ### geo-political-entity -A subset of what other named entity taxonomies often label as “location”. -This subset contains only phenomena created by mankind, not by nature. The -UMR guidelines currently provide 7 types belonging to this class, probably -not exhaustive and to be extended in the future. The annotators should use -the types as abstract concepts if they know them, otherwise they can fall -back to the whole class. +A subset of what other named entity taxonomies often label as “location”. +This subset contains only phenomena created by mankind, not by nature. The +UMR guidelines currently provide 7 types belonging to this class, probably +not exhaustive and to be extended in the future. The annotators should use +the types as abstract concepts if they know them, otherwise they can fall +back to the whole class. -The types are: `country`, `state`, `province`, `territory`, `county`, `city`, -`city-district`. +The types are: `country`, `state`, `province`, `territory`, `county`, `city`, +`city-district`. -The current selection is too much focused on North America. For example, the -Czech sub-country administrative unit, _kraj_ “region”, is neither a state, -nor a province, territory or county. Czech _okres_ could probably be -annotated as `county`. See also the `region` class below. +The current selection is too much focused on North America. For example, the +Czech sub-country administrative unit, _kraj_ “region”, is neither a state, +nor a province, territory or county. Czech _okres_ could probably be +annotated as `county`. See also the `region` class below. ### region -A class with three types: `world-region`, `country-region`, `local-region`. -There is no definition and it is difficult to guess what the authors had in -mind. But it is not in the `geo-political-entity` class, so it is probably -not meant as an official administrative unit and it does not solve the -problem with Czech _kraj_. Maybe it is meant for less official or formal -regions such as _Valašsko_, _Morava_ or _Evropa_. Still, we need criteria to -decide between the three types of regions. +A class with three types: `world-region`, `country-region`, `local-region`. +There is no definition and it is difficult to guess what the authors had in +mind. But it is not in the `geo-political-entity` class, so it is probably +not meant as an official administrative unit and it does not solve the +problem with Czech _kraj_. Maybe it is meant for less official or formal +regions such as _Valašsko_, _Morava_ or _Evropa_. Still, we need criteria to +decide between the three types of regions. ### facility -A class of man-made entities that have a fixed location but the name does not -pertain just to the location but also to the building (or whatever other -facility it is). In some cases, a facility is also an organization (example: -_museum_), which is a different entity class, but they may share a name. Then -the annotator will have to decide by context whether the utterance is more -about the legal entity (organization), or the place or building (facility). +A class of man-made entities that have a fixed location but the name does not +pertain just to the location but also to the building (or whatever other +facility it is). In some cases, a facility is also an organization (example: +_museum_), which is a different entity class, but they may share a name. Then +the annotator will have to decide by context whether the utterance is more +about the legal entity (organization), or the place or building (facility). -The guidelines currently list 19 types of facilities: `airport`, `station`, -`port`, `tunnel`, `bridge`, `road`, `railway-line`, `canal`, `building`, -`theater`, `museum`, `palace`, `hotel`, `worship-place`, `market`, -`sports-facility`, `park`, `zoo`, `amusement-park`. +The guidelines currently list 19 types of facilities: `airport`, `station`, +`port`, `tunnel`, `bridge`, `road`, `railway-line`, `canal`, `building`, +`theater`, `museum`, `palace`, `hotel`, `worship-place`, `market`, +`sports-facility`, `park`, `zoo`, `amusement-park`. ### social-group -A large class with 6 types: `family`, `clan`, `ethnic-group`, -`regional-group`, `religious-group`, `organization`. The common -characteristic of all six is that they denote groups of people. In the case -of `organization`, it also has a common property, set of activities, and -usually also some kind of legal existence; this may be also true to some -extent about families and even clans, but typically not about the other types -of groups. More importantly, an organization typically has a name that refers -to the organization as a single entity _(IBM)_, while an ethnic group is -often denoted by a plural form of a name that labels one member of the group -_(Baskové,_ the plural of _Bask_ “(a) Basque (person)”). It is thus unclear -whether and why these diverse types should be analyzed the same way. An -ethnic group is more like a categorial named entity (see also `product`), it -denotes people who share a language and/or some cultural and historical -heritage. Similarly, religious groups is just a common label for people who -share beliefs. Do we also want a “named entity” for races, or for -tall/short/slim/fat people etc., or for people who share political views, or -love for rock-and-roll, or anything else? +A large class with 6 types: `family`, `clan`, `ethnic-group`, +`regional-group`, `religious-group`, `organization`. The common +characteristic of all six is that they denote groups of people. In the case +of `organization`, it also has a common property, set of activities, and +usually also some kind of legal existence; this may be also true to some +extent about families and even clans, but typically not about the other types +of groups. More importantly, an organization typically has a name that refers +to the organization as a single entity _(IBM)_, while an ethnic group is +often denoted by a plural form of a name that labels one member of the group +_(Baskové,_ the plural of _Bask_ “(a) Basque (person)”). It is thus unclear +whether and why these diverse types should be analyzed the same way. An +ethnic group is more like a categorial named entity (see also `product`), it +denotes people who share a language and/or some cultural and historical +heritage. Similarly, religious groups is just a common label for people who +share beliefs. Do we also want a “named entity” for races, or for +tall/short/slim/fat people etc., or for people who share political views, or +love for rock-and-roll, or anything else? #### organization -A large type of the `social-group` class, see above for my doubts about its -(dis)similarity to other types. There is much less doubt (than for the other -types) that organizations are named entities, but the definition of the -subtypes has to be clarified. The type has currently 11 subtypes: -`international-organization`, `business`, `company`, -`government-organization`, `political-organization`, `criminal-organization`, -`armed-organization`, `academic-organization`, `association`, -`sports-organization`, `religious-organization`. +A large type of the `social-group` class, see above for my doubts about its +(dis)similarity to other types. There is much less doubt (than for the other +types) that organizations are named entities, but the definition of the +subtypes has to be clarified. The type has currently 11 subtypes: +`international-organization`, `business`, `company`, +`government-organization`, `political-organization`, `criminal-organization`, +`armed-organization`, `academic-organization`, `association`, +`sports-organization`, `religious-organization`. ### nationality -A separate top-level class. I do not understand why the authors did not make -it a type of `social-group`, just like `ethnic-group` and `regional-group`, -to which it is very close. For example, _Čech_ “Czech” can be, depending on -context, any of the three: A member of the ethnic group (sharing the Czech -language and traditions, including people who do not have Czech citizenship, -as their ancestors left the country and settled abroad); a member of the -nationality (having the citizenship of the Czech Republic, even if living -abroad and/or having a mother tongue other than Czech); a member of a -regional group, living or born in _Čechy_ “Bohemia” (as opposed to Moravia -and Silesia, which are the other two parts of the country called _Česko_ -“Czechia”). +A separate top-level class. I do not understand why the authors did not make +it a type of `social-group`, just like `ethnic-group` and `regional-group`, +to which it is very close. For example, _Čech_ “Czech” can be, depending on +context, any of the three: A member of the ethnic group (sharing the Czech +language and traditions, including people who do not have Czech citizenship, +as their ancestors left the country and settled abroad); a member of the +nationality (having the citizenship of the Czech Republic, even if living +abroad and/or having a mother tongue other than Czech); a member of a +regional group, living or born in _Čechy_ “Bohemia” (as opposed to Moravia +and Silesia, which are the other two parts of the country called _Česko_ +“Czechia”). ### product -This class is not listed in the current UMR guidelines, which seems to be a -gap that has to be patched. The current taxonomy actually lists some types -that could be classified as special cases of `product`, such as -`aircraft-type` or `car-make`. But there are proper names for other products, -like _Persil_ in example (4) above. Products are typical examples of what we -call categorial named entity. +This class is not listed in the current UMR guidelines, which seems to be a +gap that has to be patched. The current taxonomy actually lists some types +that could be classified as special cases of `product`, such as +`aircraft-type` or `car-make`. But there are proper names for other products, +like _Persil_ in example (4) above. Products are typical examples of what we +call categorial named entity. ### vehicle -This is a separate class with currently 5 types: `ship`, `aircraft`, -`aircraft-type`, `spaceship`, `car-make`. Note that `aircraft-type` and -`car-make` are categorial named entities that would be better described as -special types of `product`. For `ship` and `spaceship` it is more typical -that a name denotes a single instance (e.g., _Titanic_). Perhaps `aircraft` -is also meant to denote an instance rather than a type. People may -occasionally give a nickname to their car, then the name will also denote an -instance and the entity type `car-make` will not be suitable for it. +This is a separate class with currently 5 types: `ship`, `aircraft`, +`aircraft-type`, `spaceship`, `car-make`. Note that `aircraft-type` and +`car-make` are categorial named entities that would be better described as +special types of `product`. For `ship` and `spaceship` it is more typical +that a name denotes a single instance (e.g., _Titanic_). Perhaps `aircraft` +is also meant to denote an instance rather than a type. People may +occasionally give a nickname to their car, then the name will also denote an +instance and the entity type `car-make` will not be suitable for it. ### computer-program -This is a separate class with no types. It could be regarded as a type of -`product`. +This is a separate class with no types. It could be regarded as a type of +`product`. ### food-dish -This is a separate class with no types. It seems to be a categorial named -entity like `product` but it has an unsharp boundary between names and -descriptions of dishes, so it is quite questionable whether, how, and where -exactly the class concept should be used. +This is a separate class with no types. It seems to be a categorial named +entity like `product` but it has an unsharp boundary between names and +descriptions of dishes, so it is quite questionable whether, how, and where +exactly the class concept should be used. ### cultural-artifact -This is a separate class with currently 8 types: `work-of-art`, `picture`, -`music`, `dance`, `show`, `broadcast-program`, `literature`, `publication`; -the last one has subtypes `book`, `newspaper`, `magazine`, `journal`. Since -there is no description, it is not clear what is the difference between -`literature` and `publication` supposed to be. Also, there does not seem to -be a category suitable for movies. +This is a separate class with currently 8 types: `work-of-art`, `picture`, +`music`, `dance`, `show`, `broadcast-program`, `literature`, `publication`; +the last one has subtypes `book`, `newspaper`, `magazine`, `journal`. Since +there is no description, it is not clear what is the difference between +`literature` and `publication` supposed to be. Also, there does not seem to +be a category suitable for movies. -Some works of art could be seen as a categorial named entity similar to -`product`: Typically there are many copies of a book, a movie, or a CD. But -even here the prototypical reading is that the name refers to the single -intangible work, not to one of its copies. +Some works of art could be seen as a categorial named entity similar to +`product`: Typically there are many copies of a book, a movie, or a CD. But +even here the prototypical reading is that the name refers to the single +intangible work, not to one of its copies. ### law -This is a top-level class with two types: `court-decision`, `treaty`. -Supposedly the class itself should be used for actual laws. There is a need -for other types, such as a named dean's regulation at a university. +This is a top-level class with two types: `court-decision`, `treaty`. +Supposedly the class itself should be used for actual laws. There is a need +for other types, such as a named dean's regulation at a university. One could say that laws are close to publications; but they can hardly be categorized as a cultural artifact. ### language -This is a top-level class without types. Supposedly there is no distinction -between languages and dialects, i.e., names of dialects would also be labeled -as `language`. Not sure about language groups and families. Note that names -of languages are often (but not always) related to names of ethnic groups, -nationalities, regions and countries. +This is a top-level class without types. Supposedly there is no distinction +between languages and dialects, i.e., names of dialects would also be labeled +as `language`. Not sure about language groups and families. Note that names +of languages are often (but not always) related to names of ethnic groups, +nationalities, regions and countries. -It is not clear how this label is intended to be used. Should it apply only -to the name of the language (noun), e.g., _angličtina_ “(the) English -(language)”, or also to adverbs (_Mluví anglicky._ “He speaks English.”) and -adjectives (_Procvičuje si anglická slovesa._ “She is practicing English -verbs.”) +It is not clear how this label is intended to be used. Should it apply only +to the name of the language (noun), e.g., _angličtina_ “(the) English +(language)”, or also to adverbs (_Mluví anglicky._ “He speaks English.”) and +adjectives (_Procvičuje si anglická slovesa._ “She is practicing English +verbs.”) -Do we also use this label for constructed languages _(esperanto)_? I think we -do. Do we also use it for programming languages _(Pascal, C, Perl, Python)_? -I am not sure. Maybe those fall under the class `computer-program`. +Do we also use this label for constructed languages _(esperanto)_? I think we +do. Do we also use it for programming languages _(Pascal, C, Perl, Python)_? +I am not sure. Maybe those fall under the class `computer-program`. ### notational-system -This is a top-level class with currently three types: `writing-script` (e.g. -_dévanágarí_), `music-key`, `musical-note`. It denotes an abstract entity. +This is a top-level class with currently three types: `writing-script` (e.g. +_dévanágarí_), `music-key`, `musical-note`. It denotes an abstract entity. ### cultural-activity -This is a top-level class without definition and without types. It would be -useful to have an example. See also `event` below. +This is a top-level class without definition and without types. It would be +useful to have an example. See also `event` below. ### event -This is a top-level class with currently 8 types: `incident`, `war`, -`natural-disaster`, `earthquake`, `conference`, `game`, `festival`, -`ceremony`. Besides the usual problem that types are not defined, it is not -clear why `earthquake` shall be distinguished from other natural disasters. -It is also unclear why `cultural-activity` is a class separate from `event`. - -Furthermore, note that this concept denotes events as entities, although -events are typically processes (refer to the main distinction between -entities, states and processes, shown in Table 1 in Section 3-1-1 of the UMR -guidelines). Section 3-1-1 even uses the term “event” to refer to all -processes in any packaging, plus entities and states when used in -predication. Nevertheless, if an event has a name (such as _Druhá světová -válka_ “World War II”), it is covered by this taxonomy. It would be helpful -to have an annotated example here. +This is a top-level class with currently 8 types: `incident`, `war`, +`natural-disaster`, `earthquake`, `conference`, `game`, `festival`, +`ceremony`. Besides the usual problem that types are not defined, it is not +clear why `earthquake` shall be distinguished from other natural disasters. +It is also unclear why `cultural-activity` is a class separate from `event`. + +Furthermore, note that this concept denotes events as entities, although +events are typically processes (refer to the main distinction between +entities, states and processes, shown in Table 1 in Section 3-1-1 of the UMR +guidelines). Section 3-1-1 even uses the term “event” to refer to all +processes in any packaging, plus entities and states when used in +predication. Nevertheless, if an event has a name (such as _Druhá světová +válka_ “World War II”), it is covered by this taxonomy. It would be helpful +to have an annotated example here. ### award -Top-level class with no types. Supposedly, _Nobelova cena za fyziku_ “Nobel -Prize for Physics” would be an example. +Top-level class with no types. Supposedly, _Nobelova cena za fyziku_ “Nobel +Prize for Physics” would be an example. ### biomedical-entity -This is a top-level class with currently 18 types: -`molecular-physical-entity`, `small-molecule`, `protein`, `protein-family`, -`protein-segment`, `amino-acid`, `macro-molecular-complex`, `enzyme`, -`nucleic-acid`, `pathway`, `gene`, `dna-sequence`, `cell`, `cell-line`, -`species`, `taxon`, `disease`, `medical-condition`. They are obviously -inspired by the bulk of work on biomedical processing and we would need more -documentation to understand how the authors intended to use them. - -However, at least three types reach into layman's language: `species`, -`taxon`, and `disease`. The closely related `species` and `taxon` would be -categorial named entities (like `product`), where the name denotes a whole -category (type) of entities rather than a single instance. That is, if they -deserve to be treated as named entities in the first place. For example, -_kočka_ “cat” is an animal with a particular set of characteristics, just -like _dub_ “oak” is a particular type (hyponym) of tree, and _hrad_ “castle” -is a particular type of building. But the first two words are biological -genuses, hence `taxon`s, while _hrad_ has no special status in the UMR -taxonomy. (In the Czech grammar, all three are common nouns.) There is no -reason why _kočka_ and _dub_ should be named entities. And by extension, -there is little reason why `species` should be named entities, for example -_kočka domácí_ “cat (Felis catus)”, or _dub letní_ “pedunculate oak (Quercus -robur)”, or why other taxons should, for example _šelmy_ “beasts of prey, -Carnivora”, _savci_ “mammals”, or _živočichové_ “animals, Animalia”. It is -true that some species have names that are less common than others and were -invented by scholars who discovered and described the species, rather than -being part of the language since ancient times. But it would be neither -tractable nor helpful to attempt to distinguish them. Perhaps the only -exception is the scientific names in Latin, provided that the language of the -annotated text is not Latin. - -Similarly, diseases may have scientific names but many common diseases are -just common nouns or expressions (_angína_ “tonsillitis”, _chřipka_ “flu”, -_mor_ “plague”, _neštovice_ “chickenpox”) and it is not clear why they should -be handled differently from other common nouns. Moreover, diseases are states -rather than entities. +This is a top-level class with currently 18 types: +`molecular-physical-entity`, `small-molecule`, `protein`, `protein-family`, +`protein-segment`, `amino-acid`, `macro-molecular-complex`, `enzyme`, +`nucleic-acid`, `pathway`, `gene`, `dna-sequence`, `cell`, `cell-line`, +`species`, `taxon`, `disease`, `medical-condition`. They are obviously +inspired by the bulk of work on biomedical processing and we would need more +documentation to understand how the authors intended to use them. + +However, at least three types reach into layman's language: `species`, +`taxon`, and `disease`. The closely related `species` and `taxon` would be +categorial named entities (like `product`), where the name denotes a whole +category (type) of entities rather than a single instance. That is, if they +deserve to be treated as named entities in the first place. For example, +_kočka_ “cat” is an animal with a particular set of characteristics, just +like _dub_ “oak” is a particular type (hyponym) of tree, and _hrad_ “castle” +is a particular type of building. But the first two words are biological +genuses, hence `taxon`s, while _hrad_ has no special status in the UMR +taxonomy. (In the Czech grammar, all three are common nouns.) There is no +reason why _kočka_ and _dub_ should be named entities. And by extension, +there is little reason why `species` should be named entities, for example +_kočka domácí_ “cat (Felis catus)”, or _dub letní_ “pedunculate oak (Quercus +robur)”, or why other taxons should, for example _šelmy_ “beasts of prey, +Carnivora”, _savci_ “mammals”, or _živočichové_ “animals, Animalia”. It is +true that some species have names that are less common than others and were +invented by scholars who discovered and described the species, rather than +being part of the language since ancient times. But it would be neither +tractable nor helpful to attempt to distinguish them. Perhaps the only +exception is the scientific names in Latin, provided that the language of the +annotated text is not Latin. + +Similarly, diseases may have scientific names but many common diseases are +just common nouns or expressions (_angína_ “tonsillitis”, _chřipka_ “flu”, +_mor_ “plague”, _neštovice_ “chickenpox”) and it is not clear why they should +be handled differently from other common nouns. Moreover, diseases are states +rather than entities. ### variable