Implicit concepts may have to be added when something can be inferred from the context but the corresponding linguistic material is absent. Part 3-1-1-4 of the guidelines introduces implicit events. They are either copies of events mentioned earlier (gapping), or just understood from other context.
Rule 1: Be conservative. When in doubt, do not add an implicit event.
Rule 2: Do not be unnecessarily specific. For example, when a movement is understood in English, use the go concept but not more specific ones like sail or fly, unless it is really clear that these are correct.
- ESTONSKO: “ESTONIA:” (meaning: “The location where the events described below occurred is Estonia.”)
We should probably use the abstract concept have-location-91 (Part
3-1-1-3).
Its ARG1 is the theme (see Table 8 in part
3-1-3-6
and in
3-2-1-1-1),
its ARG2 is the location.
Examples of have-location-91: (2b) in 3-1-6, (1d) in 3-2-1-1-1, (1c) and (1e) in 3-3-1-3.
Perhaps we should use an abstract event as the theme and later make it coreferential with the actual events described in the article?
ESTONSKO:
(h/ have-location-91
:ARG1 (e/ event)
:ARG2 (c/ country
:wiki "Q191"
:name (n/ name :op1 "Estonsko")
:ref-number Singular)
:aspect State
:modstr FullAff)