### Table 1: Semantic roles and semantic entailments

"... In PAGE 19: ...15 For the purposes of this paper, we employ the attributes listed in table 1. Table1 gives the attribute names, the semantic relation that licenses each attribute, and the (disjunctive) lexical entailments de ning each attribute. Although some of the set of entailments which disjunctively de ne a semantic attribute might be pro tably grouped into more general entailments (the entailments characteristic of the actor attribute, for example, might reduce to a general entailment roughly para- phrasable as `has control over the unfolding of the situation apos;), the linking theory we present below does not require it.... ..."

### Table 2: Results per level of entailment.

2005

"... In PAGE 4: ...Table 2: Results per level of entailment. Table2 summarizes the results obtained from our annotated dataset for both lexical (L) and lexical- syntactic (LS) levels. Taking a system -oriented perspective, the annotations at each level can be viewed as the classifications made by an idealized system that includes a perfect implementation of the inference mechanisms in that level.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 2: Results per level of entailment.

2005

"... In PAGE 4: ...Table 2: Results per level of entailment. Table2 summarizes the results obtained from our annotated dataset for both lexical (L) and lexical- syntactic (LS) levels. Taking a system -oriented perspective, the annotations at each level can be viewed as the classifications made by an idealized system that includes a perfect implementation of the inference mechanisms in that level.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 1 to Table 2 entails an increase in the com-

1993

Cited by 6

### Table 1: Semantic roles and characteristic semantic entailments

### Table 1: Semantic roles and characteristic semantic entailments

### Table 7 Textual entailmen t rules

2007

"... In PAGE 14: ...sentenc es that did not exhibit any entai lment relationshi p with any other sentenc e were assigned a weight of 1. Table7 provides a synopsi s of the rules used to constr uct Pyrami ds from entailment judgme nts. When the identificati on of TE is complete, sentenc e clust ers wer e assem bled into a model Pyra mid based on their SCU weights .... ..."

### Table 3.4: examples demonstrating when lexical entailment does not correlate with entailment

2006

### Table 1: Inference rules for sequents.

2000

"... In PAGE 12: ...2 (Sequents) Let R = h ; E; L; Ri be a rewrite theory. We say that R entails a sequent [s] ) [t], written R ` [s] ) [t], if and only if [s] ) [t] can be obtained by a nite number of applications of the inference rules in Table1 , where t(~ w=~x) denotes the simultaneous substitution of wi for xi in t. A rewrite theory is just a static description of `what a system can do apos;; the behaviour of the theory is instead given by the rewrite relation induced by the rules of deduction.... In PAGE 12: ... A rewrite theory is just a static description of `what a system can do apos;; the behaviour of the theory is instead given by the rewrite relation induced by the rules of deduction. The deduction system in Table1 was introduced in [54], and it is only one of the possible, equivalent ways to entail the same class of sequents. It has, however, the advantage of being rather intuitive.... In PAGE 17: ...Extending the paradigm to non-cartesian structures The deduction rules presented in Table1 make clear that the underlying idea of the rewriting logic paradigm is that the rewrite relation has to be built in- ductively, lifting to computations the structure of terms. Such an intuition can be exploited to describe suitable notions of computation also over structures other than terms: In particular, over elements of gs-monoidal theories, as for the deduction system presented in this section.... In PAGE 17: ... Of course, the deduction system we just presented is also valid for rewriting over monoidal theories: Since we are not interested in the eventual structure of proof terms, we just need to change the premise of the re exivity rule, re- stricting the attention to terms in ME( ). The system in Table 2 induces over terms the same rewrite relation as the one de ned in Table1 for alge- braic sequents, since algebraic theories are just gs-monoidal theories plus the naturality axioms En, that is, AE( ) = GSE[En( ). The correspondence re- sult between the two deduction systems is explicitly given by the following proposition, stated here only for rewrite theories with an empty set of axioms.... ..."

Cited by 14