Roleset develop.01 Verbnet Class: 1 "come about":

Roles:

Arg1:non-intentional theme


Arg2:thing developed

Examples:

Intransitive / Inchoative (-)
A problem developed.
Arg1:	A problem
REL:	developed




transitive (-)
John's neck developed a big spot.
Arg1:	John's neck
REL:	developed
Arg2:	a big spot




transitive (-)
A big spot developed on John's neck.
Arg2:	A big spot
REL:	developed
Arg1-on:	on John's neck

Roleset develop.02 Verbnet Class: 1 "create":

Roles:

Arg0:creator


Arg1:thing created


Arg2:source


Arg3:benefactive


Arg4:attribute, secondary predication

Examples:

transitive (-)
John developed a strong argument
Arg0:	John
REL:	developed
Arg1:	a strong argument




transitive-1 (-)
UCLA developed a new promoter gene
Arg0:	UCLA
REL:	developed
Arg1:	a new promoter gene




but (-)
John developed a new promoter gene at UCLA
Arg0:	John
REL:	developed
Arg1:	a new promoter gene
ArgM-LOC:	at UCLA




with source (-)
John developed a strong argument from the footnotes of the paper.
Arg0:	John
REL:	developed
Arg1:	a strong argument
Arg2-from:	from the footnotes of the paper




with end-result (-)
John developed the footnotes into a strong argument.
Arg0:	John
REL:	developed
Arg2:	the footnotes
Arg1-into:	into a strong argument




with benefactive (-)
Bill Gates developed DOS for Microsoft
Arg0:	Bill Gates
REL:	developed
Arg1:	DOS
Arg3-for:	for Microsoft




with secondary predication (-)
Albert M. Kligman developed Retin-A [to combat acne]
Arg0:	Alber M. Kligman
REL:	developed
Arg1:	Retin-A
Arg4:	to combat acne




with secondary predication (-)
Albert M. Kligman developed Retin-A for combating acne.
Arg0:	Alber M. Kligman
REL:	developed
Arg1:	Retin-A
Arg4:	for combating acne

The above structure should be used in all cases, even when it feels like the Arg1 and the purpose clause (secondary predicate) are very closely linked and feel like they should be a single argument. Treebank is inconsistent in it treatment of these; sometimes it's split into two nodes, sometimes there's a single node holding both. If we are consistent in dividing these arguments, it's relatively easy for someone else to merge them. The reverse is not true.


Manner (-)
John developed the beach through a trust
Arg0:	John
REL:	developed
Arg1:	the beach
ArgM-MNR:	through a trust

Plus the usual assortment of TMPs, LOCs (easily confusable with MNRs, nota bene), ADVs, etc.