<?xml version="1.0" standalone="yes"?>
<Paper uid="W03-0905">
  <Title>The Genesis of a Script for Bankruptcy in Ontological Semantics</Title>
  <Section position="7" start_page="3" end_page="3" type="concl">
    <SectionTitle>
5 Formatted Script
</SectionTitle>
    <Paragraph position="0"> The results of the operations described in Section 4 are incorporated in the script for BANKRUPTCY below (for legibility the FACET types SEM and VALUE are omitted in this example):  The script above, even though much more complex than the script for TEACH is presented in its simplest and probably coarsest form. The gain is parsimony, in the sense of minimizing the need to acquire new lexical entries or concepts. Are there losses? A text may mention, for instance, a supplier's refusal to ship stuff to the bankrupt corporation. It does that because the corporation cannot pay it for the supplies. Can we consider it covered in the script? What if a text mentions the inability to meet the payroll? Meeting the payroll may deserve a script of its own. It may be seen to be covered sufficiently in the script above, but laying off employees may not. To owe a loan is actually to owe an installment payment on a certain date, and to be unable to pay the loan means, actually, the inability to pay an installment payment of the loan on a certain date. The script above also omits the entire credit ratings game.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="1"> The rationale for having the scripts is, not surprisingly, to do what Schank declared his group would do a quarter of a century ago (Schank, 1975; Schank and Abelson, 1977) and, unlike them, to deliver a workable non-toy product, in which the whole script is evoked when any element of it at any level of the script hierarchy occurs lexically in the text. The simplistic representation above obligates our analyzer to reduce any such pertinent lexical material to the level of owing and paying. Is it possible? The alternative is to develop much more elaborate scripts, involving a great deal more of ontological acquisition and change.</Paragraph>
    <Paragraph position="2"> A more complex and more accurate level of representation, with all the intermediate subsidiary scripts embedded in other scripts as well as component simple events enriched with precondition and effect (and, we increasingly believe, goal values), will be much costlier, so the question is whether the gain in analysis makes it worthwhile. We expect this to be dictated by the needs of the current and future applications as manifested in their goals and the nature of the texts in the pertinent corpora. But much more effort will have to be devoted to developing more specific grain-size recommendations, rules of thumb and repair/recovery procedures for cases when the grain size of the script is not sufficient to handle a text.</Paragraph>
  </Section>
class="xml-element"></Paper>