... attitude.¹

Note that this policy is new. Previously, the way to deal with a situation where an entity serves as an agent and as a target of two different private states/attitudes was the following: in the agent annotation frame, the nested-target feature, would have been used to capture the fact that the referent of the agent phrase also serves as a target. Thus, in the older way of doing things, the annotation frame for ``a U.S. State Department report'' would have looked as follows:

1. id=report
2. nested-source=writer,China,report
3. nested-target=writer,China,report

This is not the current practice! Follow the practice given above in the main text.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

... source.²

The way Beijing is annotated is also a departure from previous practice. In the older way of labeling, the span `Beijing' was annotated as an agent with the following feature:

1. nested-target=writer,China,report,China

The last id on the list of id for the nested-target was intended to tell us which agent the span is referring to (China). Further, the nesting indicated by the nested-target was intended to show according to whom China is the target of a negative attitude.

As pointed out above, we no longer use the nested-target feature in agent annotation frames. Use separate target-labels.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.