Francis suggests formatting lex names in DMRS as e.g. verb subscript:v_1(e). The DMRS and long names, when a sentence gets long, can get unreadable and this would help shorten it. Emily disagrees, and finds the subscripts to be more unreadable, and the last bits to be important information.

Emily points out that you're going to keep running into horizontal space problems, no matter how short the predicate names. The real problem is that the DMRS can't break across two lines, which seems like a solvable problem.

Emily: There is some pressure to keep the lexical predicates in roughly the same order as the surface forms due to CS/NLP engineers who are used to using dependency graphs that use the surface forms.

Emily: One thing to consider (with x vs. e in arg0) is prefixing the information to the lexical predicate.

Zhen Zhen: I have a constraint checking for binary feature that must be

• that sometimes unifies with underspecified. Would na-or-- or na-or-+ types help with this?

Emily: Here's the hierarchy:

• luk

bool na-or-- na-or-+

• + na -

(The middle row all inherits from luk, + inherits from bool and na-or-+, na inherits from both na types, - inherits from bool and na-or--.)

If you have a type that specifies +, but you don't have a type that specifies -, it's not doing any work for you.

Zhen Zhen: So I need to go through everything and change it?

Glenn and Emily: Yes 😕