[Attempto] Relative sentence example in 6.6 DRS Report causes error

[Norbert E. Fuchs]

On 20 Dec 2010, at 22:28, Joshua TAYLOR wrote:

> The example "There is a card X. X which a customer possesses is
> valid."  in the 6.6 DRS Report does not parse with the webservice, but
> produces the error:

Joshua

Relative sentences in ACE are restrictive. In this case this means that the more specific "X which a customer possesses" cannot anaphorically refer to the less specific "a card X", and APE thus produces the error message.

Perhaps this can be more clearly seen by 

There is a card. The card which a customer possesses is valid.

that introduces 2 cards (see 1/4  and 2/2) into the DRS

[A,B,C,D,E,F]
object(A,card,countable,na,eq,1)-1/4
predicate(F,possess,E,D)-2/6
object(E,customer,countable,na,eq,1)-2/5
object(D,card,countable,na,eq,1)-2/2
property(B,valid,pos)-2/8
predicate(C,be,D,B)-2/7


> Is there a variation on this formation which will parse correctly?

As I explained above the parser is correct in not accepting your text. What you probably want to express is something like

There is a card X. X is possessed by a customer and is valid.

with the DRS

[A,B,C,D,E]
object(A,card,countable,na,eq,1)-1/4
object(B,customer,countable,na,eq,1)-2/6
predicate(C,possess,B,A)-2/3
property(D,valid,pos)-2/9
predicate(E,be,A,D)-2/8

Note first that my reformulation does not use a relative phrase that would restrict the anaphoric reference, and second that now there is only one card what you probably want to achieve.

Regards.

   --- nef