DOCSLIB.ORG

Generating Text from Dbpedia Data

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Generating Text from Dbpedia Data The WebNLG Challenge: Generating Text from DBPedia Data Emilie Colin1 Claire Gardent1 Yassine M’rabet2 Shashi Narayan3 Laura Perez-Beltrachini1 1 CNRS/LORIA and Universite´ de Lorraine, Nancy, France emilie.colin,claire.gardent,laura.perez @loria.fr { 2 National Library of Medicine, Bethesda, USA} yassine.m’[email protected] 3 School of Informatics, University of Edinburgh, UK [email protected] 1 Introduction ties with typed literal values.1 There are several motivations for generating text With the emergence of the linked data initiative and from DBPedia. the rapid development of RDF (Resource Descrip- First, the RDF language in which DBPedia is en- tion Format) datasets, several approaches have re- coded is widely used within the Linked Data frame- cently been proposed for generating text from RDF work. Many large scale datasets are encoded in this data (Sun and Mellish, 2006; Duma and Klein, 2013; language (e.g., MusicBrainz2, FOAF3, LinkedGeo- Bontcheva and Wilks, 2004; Cimiano et al., 2013; Data4) and official institutions5 increasingly publish Lebret et al., 2016). To support the evaluation and their data in this format. Being able to generate good comparison of such systems, we propose a shared quality text from RDF data would permit e.g., mak- task on generating text from DBPedia data. The ing this data more accessible to lay users, enriching training data will consist of Data/Text pairs where existing text with information drawn from knowl- the data is a set of triples extracted from DBPe- edge bases such as DBPedia or describing, compar- dia and the text is a verbalisation of these triples. ing and relating entities present in these knowledge In essence, the task consists in mapping data to bases. text. Specific subtasks include sentence segmenta- Second, RDF data, and in particular, DBPedia, tion (how to chunk the input data into sentences), provide a framework that is both limited and arbi- lexicalisation (of the DBPedia properties), aggrega- trarily extensible from a linguistic point of view. In tion (how to avoid repetitions) and surface realisa- the simplest case, the goal would be to verbalise tion (how to build a syntactically correct and natural a single triple. In that case, the task mainly con- sounding text). sists in finding an appropriate “lexicalisation” for the property. The complexity of the generation task 2 Context and Motivation can be closely monitored however by increasing the number of input triples, using input with different DBPedia is a multilingual knowledge base that was shapes6, working with different semantic domains built from various kinds of structured information and/or enriching the RDF graphs with additional contained in Wikipedia (Mendes et al., 2012). This data is stored as RDF triples of the form (SUBJECT, 1http://wiki.dbpedia.org/ PROPERTY, OBJECT) where the subject is a URI (Uni- dbpedia-dataset-version-2015-10 form Resource Identifier), the property is a binary 2https://musicbrainz.org/ relation and the object is either a URI or a literal 3http://www.foaf-project.org/ 4 value such as a string, a date or a number. The En- http://linkedgeodata.org/ 5See http://museum-api.pbworks.com for exam- glish version of the DBpedia knowledge base cur- ples. rently encompasses 6.2M entities, 739 classes, 1,099 6DBPedia data forms a graph. Different graph shapes induce properties with reference values and 1,596 proper- different verbalisation structures. 163 Proceedings of The 9th International Natural Language Generation conference, pages 163–167, Edinburgh, UK, September 5-8 2016. c 2016 Association for Computational Linguistics (e.g., discourse) information. We plan to produce propose but our task differs from them in various a dataset which varies along at least some of these ways. dimensions so as to provide a benchmark for gener- KBGen generation challenge. The recent KBGen ation that will test systems on input of various com- (Banik et al., 2013) task focused on sentence genera- plexity. tion from Knowledge Bases (KB). In particular, the Third, there has been much work recently on ap- task was organised around the AURA (Gunning et plying deep learning (in particular, sequence to se- al., 2010) KB on the biological domain which mod- quence) models to generation. The training data els n-ary relations. The input data selection process used by these approaches however often have lim- targets the extraction of KB fragments which could ited variability. For instance, (Wen et al., 2015)’s be verbalised as a single sentence. The content se- data is restricted to restaurant descriptions and (Le- lection approach was semi-automatic, starting with bret et al., 2016)’s to WikiData frames. Typically the the manual selection of a set of KB fragments. Then, number of attributes (property) considered by these using patterns derived from those fragments, a new approaches is very low (between 15 and 40) and set of candidate KB fragments was generated which the text to be produced have a stereotyped structure was finally manually revised. The verbalisation of (restaurant description, biographic abstracts). By the sentence sized KB fragments was generated by providing a more varied dataset, the WebNLG data- human subjects. text corpus will permit investigating how such deep Although our task also concerns text generation learning models perform on more varied and more from KBs the definition of the task is different. Our linguistically complex data. proposal aims at the generation of text beyond sen- tences and thus involves an additional subtask that 3 Task Description is sentence segmentation. The tasks also differ on In essence, the task consists in mapping data to the KBs used, we propose using DBPedia which fa- text. Specific subtasks include sentence segmenta- cilitates changing the domain by focusing on dif- tion (how to chunk the input data into sentences), ferent categories. Moreover, the set of relations on lexicalisation (of the DBPedia properties), aggrega- both KBs pose different challenges for generation, tion (how to avoid repetitions) and surface realisa- while the AURA KB contains n-ary relations DBPe- tion (how to build a syntactically correct and natu- dia contains relations names challenging for the lex- ral sounding text). The following example illustrates icalisation subtask. A last difference with our task is this. the content selection method. Our method is com- pletely automatic and thus permits the inexpensive (1) a. Data: (JOHN E BLAHA BIRTHDATE 1942 08 26) generation of a large benchmark. Moreover, it can (JOHN E BLAHA BIRTHPLACE SAN ANTONIO) (JOHN E BLAHA OCCUPATION FIGHTER PILOT) be used to select content ranging from a single triple b. Text: John E Blaha, born in San Antonio on 1942-08- to several triples and with different shapes. 26, worked as a fighter pilot The Surface Realisation Shared Task (SR’11). The Given the input shown in (1a), generating (1b) in- major goal of the SR’11 task (Belz et al., 2011) volves lexicalising the OCCUPATION property as the was to provide a common ground for the compari- phrase worked as, using PP coordination (born in San son of surface realisers on the task of regenerating Antonio on 1942-08-26) to avoid repeating the word born sentences in a treebank. Two different tracks are (aggregation) and verbalising the 3 triples by a sin- considered with different input representations. The gle complex sentence including an apposition, a PP ’shallow’ input provides a dependency tree of the coordination and a transitive verb construction (sen- sentence to be generated and the ’deep’ input pro- tence segmentation and surface realisation). vides a graph representation where syntactic depen- Relation to Previous Shared Tasks Other NLG dencies have been replaced by semantic roles and shared task evaluation challenges have been organ- some function words have been removed. ised in the past. These have focused on different The focus of the SR’11 task was on the linguis- generation subtasks overlapping with the task we tic realisation subtask and the broad coverage of lin- 164 guistic phenomena. The task we propose here starts ILP program is used to extract from DBPedia, sub- from non-linguistic KB data and puts forward other trees that maximise bigram probability. In effect, NLG subtasks. the extracted DBPedia trees are coherent entity de- scriptions in that the property bigram they contain Generating Referring Expressions (GRE). The GRE often cooccur together in the DBPedia graphs as- shared tasks pioneered the proposed NLG chal- sociated with entities of a given DBPedia category. lenges. The first shared task has only focused on The method can be parameterised to produce con- the selection of distinguishing attributes (Belz and tent units for different DBPedia categories, differ- Gatt, 2007) while subsequent tasks have considered ent DBPedia entities and various numbers of DBPe- the referring expression realisation subtask propos- dia triples. It is fully automatic and permit produc- ing a complete referring expression generation task ing DBPedia graphs that are both coherent, diverse (Gatt et al., 2008; Gatt et al., 2009). This tasks and that bear on different domains (e.g., Astronauts, aimed at the unique identification of the referent and Universities, Musical work). brevity of the referring expression. Slightly differ- Text To associate the DBPedia trees extracted in ent, the GREC challenges (Belz et al., 2008; Belz et the first phase with text, we will combine automatic al., 2009; Belz et al., 2010) propose the generation techniques with crowdsourcing in two ways. of referring expressions in a discourse context. The First, we will lexicalise DBPedia properties by GREC tasks use a corpus created from Wikipedia using the lexicalisations contained in the Lemon abstracts on geographic entities and people and with English Lexicon for DBPedia7(Walter et al., 2013; two referring expression annotation schemes, refer- Walter et al., 2014a; Walter et al., 2014b) and ence type and word strings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • How Do BERT Embeddings Organize Linguistic Knowledge?
    How Do BERT Embeddings Organize Linguistic Knowledge? Giovanni Puccettiy , Alessio Miaschi? , Felice Dell’Orletta y Scuola Normale Superiore, Pisa ?Department of Computer Science, University of Pisa Istituto di Linguistica Computazionale “Antonio Zampolli”, Pisa ItaliaNLP Lab – www.italianlp.it [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract et al., 2019), we proposed an in-depth investigation Several studies investigated the linguistic in- aimed at understanding how the information en- formation implicitly encoded in Neural Lan- coded by BERT is arranged within its internal rep- guage Models. Most of these works focused resentation. In particular, we defined two research on quantifying the amount and type of in- questions, aimed at: (i) investigating the relation- formation available within their internal rep- ship between the sentence-level linguistic knowl- resentations and across their layers. In line edge encoded in a pre-trained version of BERT and with this scenario, we proposed a different the number of individual units involved in the en- study, based on Lasso regression, aimed at understanding how the information encoded coding of such knowledge; (ii) understanding how by BERT sentence-level representations is ar- these sentence-level properties are organized within ranged within its hidden units. Using a suite of the internal representations of BERT, identifying several probing tasks, we showed the existence groups of units more relevant for specific linguistic of a relationship between the implicit knowl- tasks. We defined a suite of probing tasks based on edge learned by the model and the number of a variable selection approach, in order to identify individual units involved in the encodings of which units in the internal representations of BERT this competence.
    [Show full text]
  • Treebanks, Linguistic Theories and Applications Introduction to Treebanks
    Treebanks, Linguistic Theories and Applications Introduction to Treebanks Lecture One Petya Osenova and Kiril Simov Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, Bulgaria Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, Bulgaria ESSLLI 2018 30th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (6 August – 17 August 2018) Plan of the Lecture • Definition of a treebank • The place of the treebank in the language modeling • Related terms: parsebank, dynamic treebank • Prerequisites for the creation of a treebank • Treebank lifecycle • Theory (in)dependency • Language (in)dependency • Tendences in the treebank development 30th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (6 August – 17 August 2018) Treebank Definition A corpus annotated with syntactic information • The information in the annotation is added/checked by a trained annotator - manual annotation • The annotation is complete - no unannotated fragments of the text • The annotation is consistent - similar fragments are analysed in the same way • The primary format of annotation - syntactic tree/graph 30th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (6 August – 17 August 2018) Example Syntactic Trees from Wikipedia The two main approaches to modeling the syntactic information 30th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information (6 August – 17 August 2018) Pros vs. Cons (Handbook of NLP, p. 171) Constituency • Easy to read • Correspond to common grammatical knowledge (phrases) • Introduce arbitrary complexity Dependency • Flexible • Also correspond to common grammatical
    [Show full text]
  • Senserelate::Allwords - a Broad Coverage Word Sense Tagger That Maximizes Semantic Relatedness
    WordNet::SenseRelate::AllWords - A Broad Coverage Word Sense Tagger that Maximizes Semantic Relatedness Ted Pedersen and Varada Kolhatkar Department of Computer Science University of Minnesota Duluth, MN 55812 USA tpederse,kolha002 @d.umn.edu http://senserelate.sourceforge.net{ } Abstract Despite these difficulties, word sense disambigua- tion is often a necessary step in NLP and can’t sim- WordNet::SenseRelate::AllWords is a freely ply be ignored. The question arises as to how to de- available open source Perl package that as- velop broad coverage sense disambiguation modules signs a sense to every content word (known that can be deployed in a practical setting without in- to WordNet) in a text. It finds the sense of vesting huge sums in manual annotation efforts. Our each word that is most related to the senses answer is WordNet::SenseRelate::AllWords (SR- of surrounding words, based on measures found in WordNet::Similarity. This method is AW), a method that uses knowledge already avail- shown to be competitive with results from re- able in the lexical database WordNet to assign senses cent evaluations including SENSEVAL-2 and to every content word in text, and as such offers SENSEVAL-3. broad coverage and requires no manual annotation of training data. SR-AW finds the sense of each word that is most 1 Introduction related or most similar to those of its neighbors in the Word sense disambiguation is the task of assigning sentence, according to any of the ten measures avail- a sense to a word based on the context in which it able in WordNet::Similarity (Pedersen et al., 2004).
    [Show full text]
  • Deep Linguistic Analysis for the Accurate Identification of Predicate
    Deep Linguistic Analysis for the Accurate Identification of Predicate-Argument Relations Yusuke Miyao Jun'ichi Tsujii Department of Computer Science Department of Computer Science University of Tokyo University of Tokyo [email protected] CREST, JST [email protected] Abstract obtained by deep linguistic analysis (Gildea and This paper evaluates the accuracy of HPSG Hockenmaier, 2003; Chen and Rambow, 2003). parsing in terms of the identification of They employed a CCG (Steedman, 2000) or LTAG predicate-argument relations. We could directly (Schabes et al., 1988) parser to acquire syntac- compare the output of HPSG parsing with Prop- tic/semantic structures, which would be passed to Bank annotations, by assuming a unique map- statistical classifier as features. That is, they used ping from HPSG semantic representation into deep analysis as a preprocessor to obtain useful fea- PropBank annotation. Even though PropBank tures for training a probabilistic model or statistical was not used for the training of a disambigua- tion model, an HPSG parser achieved the ac- classifier of a semantic argument identifier. These curacy competitive with existing studies on the results imply the superiority of deep linguistic anal- task of identifying PropBank annotations. ysis for this task. Although the statistical approach seems a reason- 1 Introduction able way for developing an accurate identifier of Recently, deep linguistic analysis has successfully PropBank annotations, this study aims at establish- been applied to real-world texts. Several parsers ing a method of directly comparing the outputs of have been implemented in various grammar for- HPSG parsing with the PropBank annotation in or- malisms and empirical evaluation has been re- der to explicitly demonstrate the availability of deep ported: LFG (Riezler et al., 2002; Cahill et al., parsers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Procedure of Lexico-Semantic Annotation of Składnica Treebank
    The Procedure of Lexico-Semantic Annotation of Składnica Treebank Elzbieta˙ Hajnicz Institute of Computer Science, Polish Academy of Sciences ul. Ordona 21, 01-237 Warsaw, Poland [email protected] Abstract In this paper, the procedure of lexico-semantic annotation of Składnica Treebank using Polish WordNet is presented. Other semantically annotated corpora, in particular treebanks, are outlined first. Resources involved in annotation as well as a tool called Semantikon used for it are described. The main part of the paper is the analysis of the applied procedure. It consists of the basic and correction phases. During basic phase all nouns, verbs and adjectives are annotated with wordnet senses. The annotation is performed independently by two linguists. Multi-word units obtain special tags, synonyms and hypernyms are used for senses absent in Polish WordNet. Additionally, each sentence receives its general assessment. During the correction phase, conflicts are resolved by the linguist supervising the process. Finally, some statistics of the results of annotation are given, including inter-annotator agreement. The final resource is represented in XML files preserving the structure of Składnica. Keywords: treebanks, wordnets, semantic annotation, Polish 1. Introduction 2. Semantically Annotated Corpora It is widely acknowledged that linguistically annotated cor- Semantic annotation of text corpora seems to be the last pora play a crucial role in NLP. There is even a tendency phase in the process of corpus annotation, less popular than towards their ever-deeper annotation. In particular, seman- morphosyntactic and (shallow or deep) syntactic annota- tically annotated corpora become more and more popular tion. However, there exist semantically annotated subcor- as they have a number of applications in word sense disam- pora for many languages.
    [Show full text]
  • Unified Language Model Pre-Training for Natural
    Unified Language Model Pre-training for Natural Language Understanding and Generation Li Dong∗ Nan Yang∗ Wenhui Wang∗ Furu Wei∗† Xiaodong Liu Yu Wang Jianfeng Gao Ming Zhou Hsiao-Wuen Hon Microsoft Research {lidong1,nanya,wenwan,fuwei}@microsoft.com {xiaodl,yuwan,jfgao,mingzhou,hon}@microsoft.com Abstract This paper presents a new UNIfied pre-trained Language Model (UNILM) that can be fine-tuned for both natural language understanding and generation tasks. The model is pre-trained using three types of language modeling tasks: unidirec- tional, bidirectional, and sequence-to-sequence prediction. The unified modeling is achieved by employing a shared Transformer network and utilizing specific self-attention masks to control what context the prediction conditions on. UNILM compares favorably with BERT on the GLUE benchmark, and the SQuAD 2.0 and CoQA question answering tasks. Moreover, UNILM achieves new state-of- the-art results on five natural language generation datasets, including improving the CNN/DailyMail abstractive summarization ROUGE-L to 40.51 (2.04 absolute improvement), the Gigaword abstractive summarization ROUGE-L to 35.75 (0.86 absolute improvement), the CoQA generative question answering F1 score to 82.5 (37.1 absolute improvement), the SQuAD question generation BLEU-4 to 22.12 (3.75 absolute improvement), and the DSTC7 document-grounded dialog response generation NIST-4 to 2.67 (human performance is 2.65). The code and pre-trained models are available at https://github.com/microsoft/unilm. 1 Introduction Language model (LM) pre-training has substantially advanced the state of the art across a variety of natural language processing tasks [8, 29, 19, 31, 9, 1].
    [Show full text]
  • Building a Treebank for French
    Building a treebank for French £ £¥ Anne Abeillé£ , Lionel Clément , Alexandra Kinyon ¥ £ TALaNa, Université Paris 7 University of Pennsylvania 75251 Paris cedex 05 Philadelphia FRANCE USA abeille, clement, [email protected] Abstract Very few gold standard annotated corpora are currently available for French. We present an ongoing project to build a reference treebank for French starting with a tagged newspaper corpus of 1 Million words (Abeillé et al., 1998), (Abeillé and Clément, 1999). Similarly to the Penn TreeBank (Marcus et al., 1993), we distinguish an automatic parsing phase followed by a second phase of systematic manual validation and correction. Similarly to the Prague treebank (Hajicova et al., 1998), we rely on several types of morphosyntactic and syntactic annotations for which we define extensive guidelines. Our goal is to provide a theory neutral, surface oriented, error free treebank for French. Similarly to the Negra project (Brants et al., 1999), we annotate both constituents and functional relations. 1. The tagged corpus pronoun (= him ) or a weak clitic pronoun (= to him or to As reported in (Abeillé and Clément, 1999), we present her), plus can either be a negative adverb (= not any more) the general methodology, the automatic tagging phase, the or a simple adverb (= more). Inflectional morphology also human validation phase and the final state of the tagged has to be annotated since morphological endings are impor- corpus. tant for gathering constituants (based on agreement marks) and also because lots of forms in French are ambiguous 1.1. Methodology with respect to mode, person, number or gender. For exam- 1.1.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Converting an HPSG-Based Treebank Into Its Parallel Dependency-Based Treebank
    Converting an HPSG-based Treebank into its Parallel Dependency-based Treebank Masood Ghayoomiy z Jonas Kuhnz yDepartment of Mathematics and Computer Science, Freie Universität Berlin z Institute for Natural Language Processing, University of Stuttgart [email protected] [email protected] Abstract A treebank is an important language resource for supervised statistical parsers. The parser induces the grammatical properties of a language from this language resource and uses the model to parse unseen data automatically. Since developing such a resource is very time-consuming and tedious, one can take advantage of already extant resources by adapting them to a particular application. This reduces the amount of human effort required to develop a new language resource. In this paper, we introduce an algorithm to convert an HPSG-based treebank into its parallel dependency-based treebank. With this converter, we can automatically create a new language resource from an existing treebank developed based on a grammar formalism. Our proposed algorithm is able to create both projective and non-projective dependency trees. Keywords: Treebank Conversion, the Persian Language, HPSG-based Treebank, Dependency-based Treebank 1. Introduction treebank is introduced in Section 4. The properties Supervised statistical parsers require a set of annotated of the available dependency treebanks for Persian and data, called a treebank, to learn the grammar of the their pros and cons are explained in Section 5. The target language and create a wide coverage grammar tools and the experimental setup as well as the ob- model to parse unseen data. Developing such a data tained results are described and discussed in Section source is a tedious and time-consuming task.
    [Show full text]
  • Corpus Based Evaluation of Stemmers
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Repository of the Academy's Library Corpus based evaluation of stemmers Istvan´ Endredy´ Pazm´ any´ Peter´ Catholic University, Faculty of Information Technology and Bionics MTA-PPKE Hungarian Language Technology Research Group 50/a Prater´ Street, 1083 Budapest, Hungary [email protected] Abstract There are many available stemmer modules, and the typical questions are usually: which one should be used, which will help our system and what is its numerical benefit? This article is based on the idea that any corpora with lemmas can be used for stemmer evaluation, not only for lemma quality measurement but for information retrieval quality as well. The sentences of the corpus act as documents (hit items of the retrieval), and its words are the testing queries. This article describes this evaluation method, and gives an up-to-date overview about 10 stemmers for 3 languages with different levels of inflectional morphology. An open source, language independent python tool and a Lucene based stemmer evaluator in java are also provided which can be used for evaluating further languages and stemmers. 1. Introduction 2. Related work Stemmers can be evaluated in several ways. First, their Information retrieval (IR) systems have a common crit- impact on IR performance is measurable by test collec- ical point. It is when the root form of an inflected word tions. The earlier stemmer evaluations (Hull, 1996; Tordai form is determined. This is called stemming. There are and De Rijke, 2006; Halacsy´ and Tron,´ 2007) were based two types of the common base word form: lemma or stem.
    [Show full text]
  • Building a User-Generated Content North-African Arabizi Treebank: Tackling Hell
    Building a User-Generated Content North-African Arabizi Treebank: Tackling Hell Djamé Seddah1 Farah Essaidi1 Amal Fethi1 Matthieu Futeral1 Benjamin Muller1;2 Pedro Javier Ortiz Suárez1;2 Benoît Sagot1 Abhishek Srivastava1 1Inria, Paris, France 2Sorbonne Université, Paris, France [email protected] Abstract sourced, namely Haitian Creole and Algerian di- alectal Arabic in these cases. No readily avail- We introduce the first treebank for a romanized able parsing and machine translations systems are user-generated content variety of Algerian, a available for such languages. Taking as an ex- North-African Arabic dialect known for its fre- quent usage of code-switching. Made of 1500 ample the Arabic dialects spoken in North-Africa, sentences, fully annotated in morpho-syntax mostly from Morocco to Tunisia, sometimes called and Universal Dependency syntax, with full Maghribi, sometimes Darija, these idioms notori- translation at both the word and the sentence ously contain various degrees of code-switching levels, this treebank is made freely available. with languages of former colonial powers such as It is supplemented with 50k unlabeled sen- French, Spanish, and, to a much lesser extent, Ital- tences collected from Common Crawl and web- ian, depending on the area of usage (Habash, 2010; crawled data using intensive data-mining tech- Cotterell et al., 2014; Saadane and Habash, 2015). niques. Preliminary experiments demonstrate its usefulness for POS tagging and dependency They share Modern Standard Arabic (MSA) as parsing. We believe that what we present in their matrix language (Myers-Scotton, 1993), and this paper is useful beyond the low-resource of course present a rich morphology.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 5: Part-Of-Speech Tagging
    CS447: Natural Language Processing http://courses.engr.illinois.edu/cs447 Lecture 5: Part-of-Speech Tagging Julia Hockenmaier [email protected] 3324 Siebel Center POS tagging Tagset: NNP: proper noun CD: numeral, POS tagger JJ: adjective, ... Raw text Tagged text Pierre_NNP Vinken_NNP ,_, 61_CD Pierre Vinken , 61 years old years_NNS old_JJ ,_, will_MD join_VB , will join the board as a the_DT board_NN as_IN a_DT nonexecutive director Nov. nonexecutive_JJ director_NN Nov._NNP 29 . 29_CD ._. CS447: Natural Language Processing (J. Hockenmaier) !2 Why POS tagging? POS tagging is a prerequisite for further analysis: –Speech synthesis: How to pronounce “lead”? INsult or inSULT, OBject or obJECT, OVERflow or overFLOW," DIScount or disCOUNT, CONtent or conTENT –Parsing: What words are in the sentence? –Information extraction: Finding names, relations, etc. –Machine Translation: The noun “content” may have a different translation from the adjective. CS447: Natural Language Processing (J. Hockenmaier) !3 POS Tagging Words often have more than one POS: " -The back door (adjective) -On my back (noun) -Win the voters back (particle) -Promised to back the bill (verb)" The POS tagging task is to determine the POS tag " for a particular instance of a word. " Since there is ambiguity, we cannot simply look up the correct POS in a dictionary. These examples from Dekang Lin CS447: Natural Language Processing (J. Hockenmaier) !4 Defining a tagset CS447: Natural Language Processing (J. Hockenmaier) !5 Defining a tag set We have to define an inventory of labels for the word classes (i.e. the tag set)" -Most taggers rely on models that have to be trained on annotated (tagged) corpora.
    [Show full text]
  • Merging Propbank, Nombank, Timebank, Penn Discourse Treebank and Coreference James Pustejovsky, Adam Meyers, Martha Palmer, Massimo Poesio
    Merging PropBank, NomBank, TimeBank, Penn Discourse Treebank and Coreference James Pustejovsky, Adam Meyers, Martha Palmer, Massimo Poesio Abstract annotates the temporal features of propositions Many recent annotation efforts for English and the temporal relations between propositions. have focused on pieces of the larger problem The Penn Discourse Treebank (Miltsakaki et al of semantic annotation, rather than initially 2004a/b) treats discourse connectives as producing a single unified representation. predicates and the sentences being joined as This paper discusses the issues involved in arguments. Researchers at Essex were merging four of these efforts into a unified responsible for the coreference markup scheme linguistic structure: PropBank, NomBank, the developed in MATE (Poesio et al, 1999; Poesio, Discourse Treebank and Coreference 2004a) and have annotated corpora using this Annotation undertaken at the University of scheme including a subset of the Penn Treebank Essex. We discuss resolving overlapping and (Poesio and Vieira, 1998), and the GNOME conflicting annotation as well as how the corpus (Poesio, 2004a). This paper discusses the various annotation schemes can reinforce issues involved in creating a Unified Linguistic each other to produce a representation that is Annotation (ULA) by merging annotation of greater than the sum of its parts. examples using the schemata from these efforts. Crucially, all individual annotations can be kept 1. Introduction separate in order to make it easy to produce alternative annotations of a specific type of The creation of the Penn Treebank (Marcus et al, semantic information without need to modify the 1993) and the word sense-annotated SEMCOR annotation at the other levels. Embarking on (Fellbaum, 1997) have shown how even limited separate annotation efforts has the advantage of amounts of annotated data can result in major allowing researchers to focus on the difficult improvements in complex natural language issues in each area of semantic annotation and understanding systems.
    [Show full text]