Multiple choice questions

[nschneid]

What did we decide to do with "multiple choice" questions like "Do you want food or (do you want) drink?". Couldn't find any documentation here or in the AMR Dictionary.

[kevincrawfordknight]

Y-N-QUESTION versus PICK-ONE-OR-MORE-QUESTION ("do you want/prefer coffee or tea?").

The latter is paraphrased as "what do you want? (coffee, tea, both, neither)".

(w / want-01
  :arg0 (y / you)
  :arg1 (o / AMR-CHOICE                  ?????
          :op1 (c / coffee)
          :op2 (t / tea)))

Ulf: Don't need :mode interrogative here.
Tim: Kind of strange to have interrogative for "whether/if".

(w / want-01
  :arg0 (y / you)
  :arg1 (o / or
          :op1 (c / coffee)
          :op2 (t / tea))
  :mode choice)                          ?????

Nathan: Doesn't specify what the choices are.

[nschneid]

I think we agreed on the amr-choice solution. There are 357 release AMRs with :mode interrogative on sentences containing "or", so presumably these would need to be inspected during retrofitting.

[timjogorman]

Kira mentioned the issues of using amr-choice for "I don't know whether he wants coffee or tea". I'd like to propose a simplistic alternative just using include-91:

"Do you want coffee or tea?"

(w / want-01
      :ARG1 (a2 / amr-unknown
            :ARG1-of (i3 / include-91
                  :ARG2 (o3 / or
                        :op1 (t / tea)
                        :op2 (c / coffee)))))
(what do you want from the set of tea and coffee)

"Should I stay or should I go?"

(o / obligate-01
      :ARG1 (a / amr-unknown
            :ARG1-of (i2 / include-91
                  :ARG2 (o2 / or
                        :op1 (s / stay-01
                              :ARG1 (i / i))
                        :op2 (g / go-02
                              :ARG0 i)))))

"I don't know whether he wants coffee or tea"

(k / know :polarity -
      :ARG0 i
      :ARG1 (t2 / thing
            :ARG1-of (w2 / want-01
                  :ARG0 (h / he))
            :ARG2-of (i4 / include-91
                  :ARG1 (o4 / or
                        :op1 (t3 / tea)
                        :op2 (c2 / coffee)))))

[nschneid]

Maybe, to parallel the truth-value treatment in #193:

"I don't know whether he wants coffee or tea"

(k / know :polarity -
      :ARG0 i
      :ARG1 (t2 / thing
            :ARG1-of (w2 / want-01
                  :ARG0 (h / he))
            :ARG2-of (c / choice-value
                  :op1 (t3 / tea)
                  :op2 (c2 / coffee))))

[nschneid]

Observation: truth-value in #193 has an implicit 'or not' in its meaning:

"I don't know whether he wants coffee" = choice(wants-coffee, not(wants-coffee))
"I don't know whether he wants coffee or tea" = choice(wants-coffee, wants-tea)

[timjogorman]

I'd be fine with choice-value instead of include-91 there. My main thought is just to split the "amr-unknown" from whatever predicate we use to describe the range of choices (which, as Kira pointed out, is sometimes not a question) -- I'm fine with having a special concept or roleset for that "range of choices".