Request For Comments: MRS

Overview

Minimal Recursion Semantics (MRS; see Copestake et al., 2005) is a framework for computational semantics characterised by a flat structure (hence the "minimal recursion"). It allows for underspecification, so true scopal ambiguities can be left ambiguous, or fully specified if needed.

Here is an example in the Simple-MRS serialization format of the sentence "The road rises from there."

[ LTOP: h1
  INDEX: e2 [ e SF: PROP TENSE: PRES MOOD: INDICATIVE PROG: - PERF: - ]
  RELS: < [ _the_q_rel<0:3> LBL: h3 ARG0: x5 [ x PERS: 3 NUM: SG IND: + ] RSTR: h6 BODY: h4 ]
          [ "_road_n_1_rel"<4:8> LBL: h7 ARG0: x5 ]
          [ "_rise_v_1_rel"<9:14> LBL: h8 ARG0: e2 ARG1: x5 ]
          [ _from_p_dir_rel<15:19> LBL: h8 ARG0: e9 [ e SF: PROP TENSE: UNTENSED MOOD: INDICATIVE PROG: - PERF: - ] ARG1: e2 ARG2: x10 [ x PERS: 3 NUM: SG ] ]
          [ place_n_rel<20:26> LBL: h11 ARG0: x10 ]
          [ def_implicit_q_rel<20:26> LBL: h12 ARG0: x10 RSTR: h13 BODY: h14 ]
          [ _there_a_1_rel<20:26> LBL: h11 ARG0: e15 [ e SF: PROP TENSE: UNTENSED MOOD: INDICATIVE PROG: - PERF: - ] ARG1: x10 ] >
  HCONS: < h6 qeq h7 h13 qeq h11 > ]

Formal Properties

Required properties:

• TOP
• INDEX
• RELS
• HCONS

Note that there is debate about the status of INDEX. It is not part of the formal definition of a complete MRS (see Copestake et al., 2005), hence Ann has at times argued it should be suppressed when constructing an MRS from its TFS description. On that point of view, INDEX is an element of the composition process, but not the 'final' product.

Conversely, it has been argued (by Dan and Francis, among others) that composition does not stop at the utterance level, i.e. if we were to move into discourse-level analysis, we might still need access to INDEX. Furthermore, in semantic transfer it is often convenient to have access to the INDEX (even more so as the current ERG leaves the TOP underspecified). In conclusion, as of mid-2011, I believe INDEX can be considered a legitimate component of MRSs, even though it remains true that it has a slightly different formal status than the others

General Remarks

Predicate names are not case-sensitive, but constants (CARGs) are. Furthermore, even though much current MRS manipulation software maintains a distinction between double-quoted predicate names (corresponding to Lisp strings) and non-quoted ones (corresponding to Lisp symbols, often naming types in some hierarchy); this distinction is not meaningful either and arguably should be suppressed in MRS in- and output.

Syntaces

Simple MRS

• <mrs> ::= "[" "LTOP:" <var> "INDEX:" <var> [ "[" <vtype> <proplist> "]" ] "RELS:" "<" <eplist> ">" "HCONS:" "<" <hconss> ">" "]"

  <var> ::= /[A-Za-z][^\d\s]*\d+/

  <vtype> ::= /[A-Za-z][^\d\s]*/

  <proplist> ::= (<prop> <val>)*

  <prop> ::= /[^\s]+:/

  <val> ::= /[^\s]+/

  <eplist> ::= <ep>*

  <ep> ::= "[" <pred> <roles> "]"

  <pred> ::= (<realpred>|<grammarpred>)[<span>]

  <realpred> ::= /^"_((\\")|[^"]*)*_rel"/

  <grammarpred> ::= /\w+_rel/

  <span> ::= /<(-)?\d+:(-)?\d+>/

  <roles> ::= <role>*

  <role> ::= "LBL:" <var> | "CARG:" <string> | <rolename> <var> ["[" <vtype> <proplist> "]"]

  <rolename> ::= /[^\s]+:/

  <string> ::= "string" | <starredstring> | <quotedstring>

  <starredstring> ::= /\*\w*\*/

  <quotedstring> ::= /"((\\")|[^"]*)*"/

  <hconss> ::= <hcons>*

  <hcons> ::= <var> <relation> <var>

  <relation> ::= "qeq" | "lheq" | "outscopes"

Indexed MRS