Roleset introduce.01 Verbnet Class: 1 "cause to meet":

Roles:

Arg0:entity making introduction


Arg1:entity being introduced


Arg2:entity being introduced TO

Examples:

without arg2 (-)
Mr. Stoltzman introduced his colleagues.
Arg0:	Mr. Stoltzman
REL:	introduced
Arg1:	his colleagues




with arg2 (-)
John introduced Mary to the pleasures of chocolate ice cream.
Arg0:	John
REL:	introduced
Arg1:	Mary
Arg2-to:	the pleasures of chocolate ice cream

To my mind, "introduce" takes two almost-symmetrical arguments; that is, if arg1 is introduced to arg2, logically arg2 is introduced to arg1 as well. Further, there are complicated figure-ground and intentionality relations to worry about also. To AVOID all of that, take a purely *syntactic* approach to the arg1/arg2 distinction: arg2 is introduced by "to".

Roleset introduce.02 Verbnet Class: NONE "implement, begin, bring up":

Roles:

Arg0:implementer, starter


Arg1:thing being brought up


Arg2:medium, where arg1 is brought up into

Examples:

advertising (-)
Newsweek will introduce a new incentive plan for advertisers.
Arg0:	Newsweek
Argm-MOD:	will
REL:	introduce
Arg1:	a new incentive plan for advertisers




with medium (-)
The man with the clipboard introduced a bit of les sportif into our itinerary.
Arg0:	The man with the clipboard
REL:	introduced
Arg1:	a bit of les sportif
Arg2-into:	our itinerary.

In WSJ this sense seems to be more common. Especially when the "medium" argument is present, the two senses are very close in meaning, at least to my mind.