Indirect PP complement throwing validator error

[bwaldon]

https://github.com/nert-nlp/legal-cgel/blob/659939c45cb7269b509072ca6715e5f3584b963b/datasets/oneoff/pdf/id295a8bc5-2a73-11ef-ba6d-a9961dfb011e_0_0.pdf

PP indirect complement "as Congress may deem necessary..."

The error:

line 868, in validate
    assert ch.constituent=='PP' and c_d in {('Nom','Comp'), ('Nom','Comp_ind'), ('VP','Comp'), ('VP','Particle'), ('VP','PredComp'), ('AdjP','Comp'), ...

(No error when I remove the PP from the tree).

[nschneid]

In particular:

@BrettRey do you think it's valid to consider this an indirect complement? If so we need to relax our previous assumptions about where indirect complements are allowed.

[BrettRey]

It does indeed look like an indirect complement.

[nschneid]

In the VP? I guess another alternative would be to say "from time to time" is a supplement within the NP. Or that there's a gap.

[BrettRey]

Yes, the supplement analysis seems obvious, now that you mention it.