Not a Winograd Schema, but I once read an example where adding the word "the" to an English sentence inverted the meaning:
"The criminals were in the possession of the police."
"The criminals were in possession of the police."
One of the odder quirks of English.
As a casual observer that does seem like a Winograd Schema. What disqualifies it?
Winograd schemas depend on world knowledge. The phrases "in the possession of" and "in possession of" mean different things apart from any particular knowledge about police or criminals.
Dennis Skinner, member of the British House of Commons, once said in a speech that "half the Tories opposite are crooks!". When asked to withdraw the statement, he said "OK, half the Tories opposite aren't crooks."
So in the presence of 'half', even 'not' can be unpredictable...
Amusing... but this isn't the same kind of ambiguity as he intentionally made the negation have the wrong scope. The expected negation would be "It is not the case that half the Tories opposite are crooks".
But haven't you then still left the crook-edness of the other half unstated and suspiciously ambiguous?
That's the denotation vs. connotation split. To me, the denotation is different but it does not resolve the scoping of "they", rather the connotation is what resolves the scope.
So I assume that a question-answering RNN will crack that in a year or two.
The classical Winograd schema as a Turing test is effectively the voight-kampff test: one could imagine that the council advocated violence, and surreptitiously sought to create say a false flag, but our mirror system and sense of morality make that interpretation less palatable.
There is a programming project in Artificial Intelligence named Shrdlite that is a course given at the University of Gothenburg and Chalmers University of Technology.
The course also includes the nearley parser to provide a blocksworld, similar to Terry's original work.
For more information, see the course webpages: