I have come across these sentences written in an English blog.
The doctor, living in this house before us, moved to Australia.
The doctors, attending a conference on malaria, urged governments to act.
These sentences are meant to mean:
The doctor lived in this house before us and then she moved to Australia.
The doctors attended a conference on malaria and then urged governments to act.
Having read these sentences, I got puzzled because I find them ambiguous. For example, if we leave "before us" from the first sentence, we will get:
The doctor, living in this house, moved to Australia.
Now it's not clear either she still lives in this house or she lived there ONLY in the past.
The same problem with the second sentence: It's not clear whether the doctors are still at the conference or they were at the conference.
Wouldn't it be better to say the following?
The doctor, who lived in this house before us, moved to Australia.
The doctors, who attended a conference on malaria, urged governments to act.
Do you find these sentences ambiguous and is it really OK to use the present participle in this case to denote a past action?