compositional grounding

[BeckySharp]

So we ran this sentence as a test case for compositional grounding:
The price of oil increased the price of water transportation.
and we found that the results weren't as expected, in terms of what the elements grounded to.

@zupon we think this would be a good unit test to refine the approach?
Issues to possibly consider:

• top k on all branches?
• what should be the threshold for reporting results from a given branch?
• (concept boundaries)

fyi @MihaiSurdeanu @bgyori @kwalcock

[zupon]

I'll take a look!

[zupon]

I might have figured out what's going on and how to address it.

As it was, our odin rule in OntologyGrounder would look for words within the mention as potential modifiers. The first rule would make a single chunk out of multiple words in a row that matched, which got us things like armed clashes or school supplies being a single modifier, which is good. However, it also turned water transportation into one single chunk, so the second rule would make that into one single modifier.

To address this, I changed the first rule to only make individual words into chunks. This will stop it from making water transportation into a single modifier, letting us treat water and transportation separately. This fixes a test I wrote for the above sentence.

However, it does now separate armed clashes and school supplies into individual words. This may cause additional problems with multi-word items in the ontology, but I need to investigate it further. That being said, the tests for sentences that include those still pass right now.

How we handle this may also depend on what we decide for #744