Shared FE vocabulary

FrameNet assigns frame-specific Frame Elements (FEs) by design — Cook in Apply_heat is not literally the same FE as Agent in Killing. This specificity is a strength and the current model does not seek to abolish it. But it is plainly true that many FEs share a high-level semantics: the Cook, the Killer, the Builder are all, at a higher level, agentive instigators.

The model exploits this shared high-level semantics using qualia roles, adapted (roughly) from the Qualia Structure of the Generative Lexicon. Qualia roles are not new FEs and do not replace frame-specific FEs. They are a small classifying vocabulary used to group FEs across frames and to describe the characteristic participant structure of each namespace.

The four qualia roles:

The generic event structure, showing all four roles and their relation to the Event, is the backdrop against which each namespace profiles a subset:

graph BT
    subgraph AQ["AGENTIVE ROLE"]
        Agent[Agent<br/>+intentional +volitional]
        Cause[Cause<br/>+causation -intentional]
        Cognizer[Cognizer<br/>+intentional +volitional]
        Source[Source<br/>-intentional -volitional]
    end

    subgraph TQ["TELIC ROLE"]
        Patient[Patient<br/>+affected +endpoint +change]
        Experiencer[Experiencer<br/>+perceiver +experiential]
        Goal[Goal<br/>+recipient +destination]
        Result[Result<br/>+recipient +endpoint]
    end

    subgraph CQ["CONSTITUTIVE ROLE"]
        Theme[Theme<br/>+participant -specific_role]
        Instrument[Instrument<br/>+means +used_by_agent]
        Path[Path<br/>+component]
        Part[Part<br/>+component]
        Material[Material<br/>+substance]
        Value[Value<br/>+component]
    end

    subgraph FQ["FORMAL ROLE"]
        Entity[Entity<br/>+participant]
        Activity[Activity]
        Relation[Relation]
        Condition[Condition]
        State[State]
        Attribute[Attribute]
        Category[Category]
    end

    Condition -->|predicates| Theme
    Theme -->|participates_in| Event
    Agent -->|intentionally_causes| Event
    Cause -->|causes| Event
    Source -->|origin_of| Event
    Cognizer -->|acts_on| Event

    Activity -->|is_a| Event
    State -->|is_a| Condition
    Attribute -->|is_a| Condition
    Category -->|is_a| Condition
    Relation -->|is_a| Condition

    Instrument -->|is_a| Theme
    Part -->|is_a| Theme
    Material -->|is_a| Theme
    Value -->|is_a| Theme
    Entity -->|participates_in| Event
    Path -->|is_a| Theme

    Event -->|affects| Patient
    Event -->|stimulus_for| Experiencer
    Event -->|directed_to| Goal
    Event -->|results| Result
    Event -->|affects_reflexively| Agent
    Event -->|mutual| Agent

    Patient -->|from| Condition
    Patient -->|to| Condition
    Experiencer -->|to| Condition

FrameNet names the roles by frame context; the labels above are the high-level classifying vocabulary. Each namespace is described by a profiling of this structure — which roles are characteristic of frames in that namespace.

Two cautions, carried over from prior analysis:

• A frame-specific FE may not fit exactly one qualia role. Qualia roles are a grouping criterion, not a partition. Where an FE spans roles (the notorious Theme; see below), record the profiled role and note the others.
• Qualia roles answer "what role does this FE play in the event". They are distinct from semantic types, which answer "what kind of thing fills this FE". The two axes are orthogonal and the model uses both.

Note on cross-role FEs

Patient, Experiencer, and Theme are intrinsically multi-role and the model treats this as expected, not as a defect:

• Patient combines TELIC (affected endpoint), CONSTITUTIVE (participant), and FORMAL (the entity that ends in a state). Classified as TELIC (its profiled aspect), with the others noted. Patient is profiled in its own right by @undergoing (a Patient undergoing an externally-instigated event), as opposed to appearing as the backgrounded object of an @agentive frame or as the spontaneous Theme of an @change one — the three views form the Agentive ↔ Undergoing ↔ Change perspective set.
• Experiencer combines TELIC (endpoint of a stimulus), AGENTIVE (when under control, e.g. olhar), and FORMAL (bearer of a mental state, e.g. saber). Classified as TELIC, with the agentive variant flagged.
• Theme is the most generic CONSTITUTIVE participant and is deliberately underspecified for affectedness. It is the default role for a participant with no sharper characterization.

How the namespaces are described (Layer 2)

Concept

Layer 2 is a descriptive overlay, not a mechanism. For each namespace this document records the characteristic participant signature — the qualia-role participants that are typical of frames classified under it. This signature is a reference description, in the same spirit as the master table's "Typical structure" column, only stated in the shared qualia vocabulary so the namespaces can be compared on common terms.

The models has created meta-frame and dedicated frame-to-frame relation. These abstract frames represents each namespace plus and a Meta relation carries FE→meta-FE mappings. This structure is descriptive, not prescriptive, and it establishes a shared vocabulary for grouping FEs.

What this means in practice:

• Classifying a frame is the act in which the creator states which view the frame takes — choosing @agentive over @change is the disambiguation, performed by a human at the right moment.
• The signature is partial by design. It captures only the shared high-level participants, never a frame's full FE roster. Unmapped frame-specific FEs are expected and fine.
• The value is guidance and post-hoc evaluation, held to the guidance standard: success is "obvious mismatches drop out and creators analyse more deeply," not "misclassification is impossible." Nothing here blocks frame creation.

Modality is cross-cutting, not a namespace

There is no @modal namespace, by deliberate decision. Modality (possibility, probability, necessity, obligation, permission, capability) is a feature that cuts across namespaces, not a namespace of its own. Inspection of the candidate frames shows they do not form one class — they distribute by modal flavor (epistemic / deontic / dynamic):

Two consequences:

1. Deontic modality decomposes by perspective into @scenario (the scenario), @agentive (imposing), and @stative (the obligation holding) — using the same distinctions the event model already uses. A @modal namespace would compete with these and force an arbitrary choice; the perspective decomposition is cleaner and is recorded among those three namespaces as a perspective set.

2. The only residue without a pre-existing home is Senser-less epistemic predication of a proposition (Group 1: Possibilidade, Probabilidade). This is a narrow class and is housed in @attribute, distinguished from ordinary entity-attributes by the bearer's semantic type:

   @attribute sub-kind	Bearer (semantic type)	Examples
   Entity-attribute	Entity	inteligência, cor, tamanho, Capacidade_volume
   Modal-attribute	State_of_affairs	Possibilidade, Probabilidade

   The semantic-type layer carries this distinction; no new namespace is needed. Revisit only if the modal-attribute class grows large enough to justify the overhead — current evidence (two frames) says it will not.

Shared-signature / perspective pairs

Some namespaces share a characteristic participant signature. Frames in these pairs are distinguished by profiling, judged by a human, not by FE structure — and the model must therefore never auto-flag a frame merely because it could also fit the partner namespace. These relationships are recorded here, once, as descriptive commentary on the namespaces; no structural relation is created to carry them.

The governing principle: each pair is two Situations over one Event. The alternation is real and expected; recording it here at the level of the namespaces means the evaluation tooling treats partner-namespace membership as legitimate, not as an error to flag.