PropBank Martha Palmer University of Colorado

Unified Linguistic Annotation: Merging PropBank, NomBank, TimeBank, Penn Discourse Treebank, Coreference, and Opinions Your all invited to the Project Meeting at Colorado March Motivation – Broadening the semantic annotation of linguistic corpora – Providing the community with a more robust resource Requirements – Merging and integrating existing linguistic annotation schemes into one unified and consistent layer. – Production of a stable and language-independent methodology for unified annotation – Incorporation of additional annotation schemes, new genres, and additional languages Issues – Merging overlapping annotations – Resolving conflicting annotations

Annotation Efforts Involved Treebank –Marcus, Santorini, and Marcinkiewicz (1993) PropBank –Palmer, Gildea, and Kingsbury (2005) NomBank –Meyers, Reeves, Macleod, Szekely, Zielinska, Young, and Grishman (2004) TimeBank –Pustejovsky, Littman, Knippen, and Sauri (2005) MATE/GNOME Anaphoric Reference –Poesio (2004a, 2004b) Penn Discourse TreeBank –Miltsakaki, Prasad, Joshi, and Webber (2004) Opinion Corpus –Wiebe, Wilson, and Cardie (2005)

An example of utility – Who did what do whom? (S (NP-SBJ 0:1-ARG! (NNS Stores (VP (VBP are (VP (VBG expanding 2:0-rel expand.01)))) “Stores are expanding.” Stores are the “thing grown” and not the “causer.” ID : expand.01 - Name : (cause to) grow Arg0 : causer of growth, agent Arg1 : thing grown Arg2 : amount increased by, EXT or MNR Arg3 : start point Arg4 : end point

Utility of Propbank/Nombank Aid to Recovering Implicit Information – Empty Arg0/Causer of expansion – Look for potential cause in previous sentence “economic development” A foundation for temporal and causal relation annotations Also modality annotations, committed belief annotations, etc.