... | ... | @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ In this latter case, knowing the defining characteristics of the concept enables |
|
|
- an entity name may well be ambiguous (e.g. several people bearing the same name), the key differentiating trait between (1) and (2) concerns whether or not there must be a naming convention at the level of each entity (Kleiber, 2007)
|
|
|
- for concept names of course there is also a naming convention (why use the noun *table* for a table), but it is defined at the level of the class of entities, not at the level of each entity. In a given context, a NP headed by *table* may refer to a specific table *t*, but this is without any naming convention of this particular table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This distinction between entity name and instantiable concept name is reminiscent of the proper noun versus common noun distinction, but this latter distinction is not so easy to define precisely. Of course, lexical items that are exclusively used for directly naming entities (e.g. the first and last names for people) are easily classified as proper nouns (sometimes called **pure proper nouns**). This is why Erhmann (2008) roughly defines proper nouns as the "désignation d’une entité précise par le biais d’une description dont le sens joue un rôle mineur par rapport à la dénomination, opérant directement, du référent" (the designation of a precise entity via a description whose meaning plays a minor role with respect to the denomination of the referent, which operates directly").
|
|
|
This distinction between entity name and instantiable concept name is remeitheriniscent of the proper noun versus common noun distinction, but this latter distinction is not so easy to define precisely. Of course, lexical items that are exclusively used for directly naming entities (e.g. the first and last names for people) are easily classified as proper nouns (sometimes called **pure proper nouns**). This is why Erhmann (2008) roughly defines proper nouns as the "désignation d’une entité précise par le biais d’une description dont le sens joue un rôle mineur par rapport à la dénomination, opérant directement, du référent" (the designation of a precise entity via a description whose meaning plays a minor role with respect to the denomination of the referent, which operates directly").
|
|
|
But an abundant literature shows that the proper / common noun distinction proves difficult to characterize in linguistic terms (we refer primarily to (Kleiber, 2001;2007) and (Erhmann, 2008) for a state of the art). Indeed within names of specific entities, we can distinguish:
|
|
|
- **(1a)** entity names composed of lexical items that are dedicated to naming entities (pure proper nouns), such as *Italy*, *Anna Duval*, *Microsoft*
|
|
|
- **(1b)** entity names that have a descriptive basis, such as the *International League against Racism and Anti-Semitism* or the *Massif central* (literally the *central massif*): the naming convention between the entity and the name is sociologically typical of a proper noun (the name of an association, of a geographical item), but also clearly results from the compatibility of the entity characteristics and the meaning of the lexical items
|
... | ... | @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ There are two types of candidates for a potential annotation: |
|
|
- (1) single token or sequence of tokens that the annotator perceives potentially as the name of an entity of semantic type PERSON, ORGANIZATION, LOCATION, HUMAN PRODUCT or EVENT
|
|
|
- (2) a sequence of several tokens, whose meaning is at first sight obtained idiosyncratically and/or for which the components cannot vary freely (at the morphological or lexical level, substitutions that are normally possible are not acceptable for this sequence, or produce an unexpected change of meaning)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note for some candidates, it might be unclear at the beginning whether they will be tagged as named entity or MWE, and what is their exact span. The annotators should decide using the decision tree.
|
|
|
Note that for some candidates, it might be unclear at the beginning whether they will be tagged as named entity or MWE, and what is their exact span. The annotators should decide using the decision tree.
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Decision tree
|
|
|
|
... | ... | |