From owner-cse663-fa08-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU  Wed Oct 15 19:15:20 2008
Date:         Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:15:11 -0400
From: "William J. Rapaport" <rapaport@cse.Buffalo.EDU>
Subject: 663: "iobj" vs. "indobj"
To: CSE663-FA08-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: "iobj" vs. "indobj"
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I just checked the file:

/projects/rapaport/CVA/STN2/demos/rels

which contains the following SNePSUL command:

(define a1 a2 a3 a4 after agent against antonym associated before cause
   class direction equiv etime event from in indobj instr into lex location
    manner member mode object on onto part place possessor proper-name
    property rel skf sp-rel stime subclass superclass subset superset
    synonym time to whole kn_cat)

Notice that it does contain the relation

	indobj

but not the relation

	iobj

Therefore, if you feel the need to use an indirect-object relation,
please use "indobj", NOT iobj.

Moreover, the verb algorithm, in the file defun_verb.cl, does indeed
look for information stored at the head of arcs labeled "indobj".