DOCSLIB.ORG

Standardizing Wordnets in the ISO Standard LMF: Wordnet-LMF for Germanet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Standardizing Wordnets in the ISO Standard LMF: Wordnet-LMF for Germanet Standardizing Wordnets in the ISO Standard LMF: Wordnet-LMF for GermaNet Verena Henrich Erhard Hinrichs Universtiy of Tübingen Universtiy of Tübingen Department of Linguistics Department of Linguistics verena.henrich@uni- erhard.hinrichs@uni- tuebingen.de tuebingen.de tions, (annotated) text corpora, and dictionar- Abstract ies. It is fair to say that it has become common practice among developers of new linguistic It has been recognized for quite some resources to consult TEI guidelines and ISO time that sustainable data formats play standards in order to develop standard- an important role in the development conformant encoding schemes that serve as an and curation of linguistic resources. interchange format and that can be docu- The purpose of this paper is to show mented and validated by Document Type how GermaNet, the German version of Definitions (DTD) and XML schemata. the Princeton WordNet, can be con- However, for resources that were developed verted to the Lexical Markup Frame- prior to or largely in parallel with the emerging work (LMF), a published ISO standard acceptance of markup languages and of emerg- (ISO-24613) for encoding lexical re- ing encoding standards, the situation is far sources. The conversion builds on more heterogeneous. A wide variety of legacy Wordnet-LMF, which has been pro- formats exists, many of which have persisted posed in the context of the EU due to existing user communities and the KYOTO project as an LMF format for availability of tools that can process only such wordnets. The present paper proposes a idiosyncratic formats. The development of number of crucial modifications and a wordnets for a large number of languages is a set of extensions to Wordnet-LMF that typical example of a type of linguistic re- are needed for conversion of wordnets source, where legacy formats still persist as a in general and for conversion of Ger- de facto standard. WordNet 1.6 is encoded in maNet in particular. the data format of lexicographer files4 that was designed for the English Princeton WordNet 1 Introduction (Fellbaum, 1998). It is a plain-text format for It has been recognized for quite some time that storing wordnet data and allows lexicographers sustainable data formats play an important role to encode lexical and conceptual relations in the development and curation of linguistic among lexical units and synsets by use of spe- resources. As witnessed by the success of the cial-purpose diacritics. There exist numerous guidelines of the Text Encoding Initiative 1 tools that can process WordNet 1.6 lexicogra- (TEI) and of published standards issued by the pher files to extract relevant information or to International Standards Organization 2 (ISO), transform the data into other special-purpose markup languages such as XML3 (short for: formats such as Prolog-fact databases. Even Extensible Markup Language) have become tough still widely used for the reasons just lingua francas for encoding linguistic resources mentioned, the complexity of the format itself of different types, including phonetic transcrip- has a number of undesirable consequences. As Henrich and Hinrichs (2010) have pointed out, 1 See http://www.tei-c.org 2 See http://www.iso.org 4 See http://wordnet.princeton.edu/man/lexnames.5 3 See http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/ WN.html 456 Proceedings of the 23rd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2010), pages 456–464, Beijing, August 2010 the editing of lexicographer files is highly er- wordnets for a steadily increasing ror-prone and time-consuming in actual lexi- number of languages. cographic development. Moreover, format 3. To show how these open issues can be validation of the data as well as development resolved in a customized version of of new tools for data visualization and data Wordnet-LMF suitable for GermaNet. extraction become increasingly difficult since they cannot be based on generic state-of-the- The remainder of this paper is structured as art tools, that are, for example, available for follows: section 2 provides a general introduc- XML-based encodings. tion to GermaNet. Details about the adapted For exactly these reasons, XML-based inter- XML format used for GermaNet up until now change formats have been proposed in recent are provided in section 3. Section 4 introduces years also for wordnets. One of the first, if not the challenge of how to represent a wordnet in the first, example is the XML format for Ger- the Lexical Markup Framework. As one possi- maNet5, a wordnet for German (Lemnitzer and bility, Wordnet-LMF is regarded. Issues that Kunze, 2002; Henrich and Hinrichs, 2010). An arise during the conversion of GermaNet into even more recent development along these Wordnet-LMF lead to a modified version of lines is the specification of Wordnet-LMF (see Wordnet-LMF. Finally, section 5 concludes Soria et al., 2009), an instantiation of the Lexi- with a comparison of the two representation cal Markup Framework6 (LMF, (Francopoulo formats. et al., 2006)) customized for wordnets. Since LMF is an ISO standard (ISO-24613), 2 GermaNet it is a particularly attractive candidate for en- GermaNet is a lexical semantic network that is coding wordnets. Everything else being equal, modeled after the Princeton WordNet for Eng- ISO standards have a high chance of being lish. It partitions the lexical space into a set of adopted by a wide user community and of be- concepts that are interlinked by semantic rela- ing recognized as an interchange format.7 Such tions. A semantic concept is modeled by a syn- agreed-upon interchange formats are a crucial set. A synset is a set of words (called lexical prerequisite for interoperable linguistic re- units) where all the words are taken to have sources in the context of web services and of (almost) the same meaning. Thus a synset is a processing pipelines for linguistic resources. set-representation of the semantic relation of The purpose of this paper is threefold: synonymy, which means that it consists of a 1. To compare and contrast the GermaNet list of lexical units and a paraphrase (repre- XML initially proposed by Lemnitzer sented as a string). The lexical units in turn and Kunze (2002) with the Wordnet- have frames (which specify the syntactic va- LMF. This comparison is instructive lence of the lexical unit) and examples. The list since it reveals two completely differ- of lexical units for a synset is never empty, but ent conceptions of representing seman- any of the other properties may be. tic knowledge at the lexical level. There are two types of semantic relations in GermaNet: conceptual and lexical relations. 2. To point out a number of open issues Conceptual relations hold between two seman- that need to be resolved if Wordnet- tic concepts, i.e. synsets. They include rela- LMF is to be adopted widely among tions such as hyperonymy, part-whole rela- tions, entailment, or causation. Lexical rela- tions hold between two individual lexical units. 5 See http://www.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/GermaNet/ Antonymy, a pair of opposites, is an example 6 See http://www.lexicalmarkupframework.org of a lexical relation. 7 An anonymous reviewer raised the question why OWL GermaNet covers the three word categories is not a good candidate for encoding wordnets. On this of adjectives, nouns, and verbs, each of which issue, we agree with the assessment of Soria et al. (2009) who point out that “[…] RDF and OWL are conceptual is hierarchically structured in terms of the hy- repositories representation formats that are not designed peronymy relation of synsets. to represent polysemy and store linguistic properties of words and word meanings.” 457 Figure 1. Structure of the XML synset files. semantic relation of synonymy. Further prop- 3 Current GermaNet XML Format erties of a synset (e.g., the word category or a describing paraphrase) and a lexical unit (e.g., The structure of the XML files closely follows a sense number or the orthographical form the internal structure of GermaNet, which (orthForm)) are encoded appropriately. means that the file structure mirrors the under- Figure 1 describes the underlying XML lying relational organization of the data. There structure. Each box in the figure stands for an are two DTDs that jointly describe the XML- element in the XML files, and the properties in encoded GermaNet. One DTD represents all each box (listed underneath the wavy line) rep- synsets with their lexical units and their attrib- resent the attributes of an XML element. This utes (see subsection 3.1). The other DTD rep- means, for example, that a synset element has resents all relations, both conceptual and lexi- the attributes of an id and a category.10 cal relations (see subsection 3.2). Figure 2 shows an example of a synset with The GermaNet XML format was initially two lexical units (lexUnit elements) and a developed by Kunze and Lemnitzer (2002), but paraphrase. The lexUnit elements in turn con- modifications of the GermaNet data itself led tain several attributes and an orthographical to an adopted XML format, which is presented form (the orthForm element), e.g., leuchten here.8 (German verb for: to shine). The first of the 3.1 XML Synset Files two lexical units even has a frame and an ex- ample. The XML files that represent all synsets and lexical units of GermaNet are organized <synset id="s58377" category="verben"> around the three word categories currently in- <lexUnit id="l82207" cluded in GermaNet: nouns, adjectives, and sense="1" verbs (altogether 54 synset files since the se- namedEntity="no" mantic space for each word category is divided artificial="no" styleMarking="no"> into a number of semantic subfields). <orthForm>leuchten</orthForm> The structure of each of these files is illus- <frame>NN</frame> trated in Figure 19.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Standardisation Action Plan for Clarin
    Standardisation Action Plan for Clarin State: Proposal to CLARIN community Nuria Bel, Jonas Beskow, Lou Boves, Gerhard Budin, Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Erhard Hinrichs, Steven Krauwer, Lothar Lemnitzer, Stelios Piperidis, Adam Przepiorkowski, Laurent Romary, Florian Schiel, Helmut Schmidt, Hans Uszkoreit, Peter Wittenburg August 2009 Summary This document describes a proposal for a Standardisation Action Plan (SAP) for the Clarin initiative in close synchronization with other relevant initiatives such as Flarenet, ELRA, ISO and TEI. While Flarenet is oriented towards a broader scope since it is also addressing standards that are typically used in industry, CLARIN wants to be more focussed in its statements to the research domain. Due to the overlap it is agreed that the Flarenet and CLARIN documents on standards need to be closely synchronized. This note covers standards that are generic (XML, UNICODE) as well as standards that are domain specific where naturally the LRT community has much more influence. This Standardization Action Plan wants to give an orientation for all practical work in CLARIN to achieve a harmonized domain of language resources and technology stepwise and therefore its core message is to overcome fragmentation. To meet these goals it wants to keep its message as simple as possible. A web-site will be established that will contain more information about examples, guidelines, explanations, tools, converters and training events such as summer schools. The organization of the document is as follows: • Chapter 1: Introduction to the topic. • Chapter 2: Recommended standards that CLARIN should endorse page 4 • Chapter 3: Standards that are emerging and relevant for CLARIN page 8 • Chapter 4: General guidelines that need to be followed page 12 • Chapter 5: Reference to community practices page 14 • Chapter 6: References This document tries to be short and will give comments, recommendations and discuss open issues for each of the standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Proceedings of the Workshop on Multilingual Language Resources and Interoperability, Pages 1–8, Sydney, July 2006
    COLING •ACL 2006 MLRI’06 Multilingual Language Resources and Interoperability Proceedings of the Workshop Chairs: Andreas Witt, Gilles Sérasset, Susan Armstrong, Jim Breen, Ulrich Heid and Felix Sasaki 23 July 2006 Sydney, Australia Production and Manufacturing by BPA Digital 11 Evans St Burwood VIC 3125 AUSTRALIA c 2006 The Association for Computational Linguistics Order copies of this and other ACL proceedings from: Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL) 209 N. Eighth Street Stroudsburg, PA 18360 USA Tel: +1-570-476-8006 Fax: +1-570-476-0860 [email protected] ISBN 1-932432-82-5 ii Table of Contents Preface .....................................................................................v Organizers . vii Workshop Program . ix Lexical Markup Framework (LMF) for NLP Multilingual Resources Gil Francopoulo, Nuria Bel, Monte George, Nicoletta Calzolari, Monica Monachini, Mandy Pet and Claudia Soria . 1 The Role of Lexical Resources in CJK Natural Language Processing Jack Halpern . 9 Towards Agent-based Cross-Lingual Interoperability of Distributed Lexical Resources Claudia Soria, Maurizio Tesconi, Andrea Marchetti, Francesca Bertagna, Monica Monachini, Chu-Ren Huang and Nicoletta Calzolari. .17 The LexALP Information System: Term Bank and Corpus for Multilingual Legal Terminology Consolidated Verena Lyding, Elena Chiocchetti, Gilles Sérasset and Francis Brunet-Manquat . 25 The Development of a Multilingual Collocation Dictionary Sylviane Cardey, Rosita Chan and Peter Greenfield. .32 Multilingual Collocation Extraction: Issues and Solutions Violeta Seretan and Eric Wehrli . 40 Structural Properties of Lexical Systems: Monolingual and Multilingual Perspectives Alain Polguère . 50 A Fast and Accurate Method for Detecting English-Japanese Parallel Texts Ken’ichi Fukushima, Kenjiro Taura and Takashi Chikayama . 60 Evaluation of the Bible as a Resource for Cross-Language Information Retrieval Peter A.
    [Show full text]
  • Standardization Work Isotiger Transcription of Spoken Language CQLF: Corpus Query Lingua Franca
    Recent Initiatives towards New Standards for Language Resources Gottfried Herzog1, Ulrich Heid2, Thorsten Trippel3, Piotr Ba´nski4, Laurent Romary5, Thomas Schmidt4, Andreas Witt4, Kerstin Eckart6 1DIN Deutsches Institut fur¨ Normung e. V., Berlin, 2Universit¨at Hildesheim, 3Universit¨at Tubingen,¨ 4Institut fur¨ Deutsche Sprache, Mannheim, 5Inria, 6Universit¨at Stuttgart E-mail: [email protected] Standardization Work Transcription of spoken language • Who? A representation format to compare, interchange and combine { Experts from industry, academia and administrations orthography-based transcriptions of spoken language. { Experts are nominated { based on expertise and interest The standard is developed in cooperation with TEI proposals in the field. [Schmidt 2011] { ISO committee TC 37/SC 4 and national mirror committees, Based on e.g. for Germany: Normenausschuss NA-105-00-06 AA • State of the art tools and formats for creating, editing, Sprachressourcen publishing and querying transcribed data DIN { Deutsches Institut f¨ur Normung e.V. • Widely used transcription systems • How? { Stepwise procedures: Encoded components Example on handout Proposals { working drafts { (draft) international standards • Metadata: based on TEI header { Consensus-based: drafting { commenting { ballot • Macrostructure: timeline, single and grouped utterances, { National standards organizations provide infrastructure elements outside utterances (e.g. <pause> and <incident>) • Microstructure: Excerpt of the list of standards and standard proposals by ISO
    [Show full text]
  • Exploring and Visualizing Wordnet Data with Germanet Rover
    Exploring and Visualizing Wordnet Data with GermaNet Rover Marie Hinrichs, Richard Lawrence, Erhard Hinrichs University of Tübingen, Germany www.clarin-d.net GERMANET AND ROVER 1 www.clarin-d.net GermaNet: a Wordnet for German A wordnet groups synonyms into synsets and represents relations between synsets. The hypernym relation forms a hierarChiCal graph structure. 2 www.clarin-d.net Rover: a web appliCation for GermaNet Rover displays the data in GermaNet in an interaCtive interfaCe designed for researChers. It offers: • advanced searChing for synsets • visualizing the hypernym graph • CalCulating synsets’ semantiC relatedness via graph-based measures 3 www.clarin-d.net SYNSET SEARCH 4 www.clarin-d.net Synset SearCh Overview Try it: https://weblicht.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/rover/search 5 www.clarin-d.net SearCh Options Advanced searChes for • search by regular synsets: expression and edit distance • restrict results by grammatical category, semantic class, and orthographic variant 6 www.clarin-d.net Results List A summary of each synset in the search results includes: • words in the synset • its semantic class • associated Wiktionary definitions • summary of conceptual relations to other synsets 7 www.clarin-d.net Conceptual Relations Selecting a synset displays details about its conceptual relations: • a network diagram of the synset’s hypernyms • related synsets, displayed as navigation buttons 8 www.clarin-d.net LexiCal Units and Relations More details about the words in the seleCted synset: • lexically-related words, displayed as navigation buttons • Interlingual index reCords (pointers to Princeton WordNet) • examples and assoCiated frame types • deComposition of Compound nouns 9 www.clarin-d.net SEMANTIC RELATEDNESS 10 www.clarin-d.net SemantiC Relatedness Overview Try it: https://weblicht.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/rover/semrel 11 www.clarin-d.net SemantiC Relatedness Measures Rover supports six graph-based measures of semantic relatedness between pairs of synsets: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Mise En Page 1
    Catalogue général Janvier 2019 27-37 St George’s Road – London SW19 4EU — United Kingdom www.iste-editions.fr – www.openscience.fr – www.iste.co.uk – www.istegroup.com Table des matières Table of contents Organisation éditoriale, SCIENCES .................................................................................. 4 Biologie, médecine et santé • Biology, Medecine and Health ........................................ 7 Bioingénierie médicale • Biomedical Engineering ................................................................ 8 Biologie • Biology ................................................................................................................. 11 Ingénierie de la santé et société • Health Engineering and Society ..................................... 12 Chimie • Chemistry ............................................................................................................ 17 Agriculture, science des aliments et nutrition ....................................................................... 18 Agriculture, Food Science and Nutrition Chimie • Chemistry ............................................................................................................... 20 Écologie et environnement • Ecology and Environment ................................................ 23 Écologie • Ecological Sciences ............................................................................................ 24 Environnement • Environmental Sciences ........................................................................... 28
    [Show full text]
  • A Method for Reusing and Re-Engineering Non-Ontological Resources for Building Ontologies
    Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial Facultad de Informatica´ PhD Thesis A Method for Reusing and Re-engineering Non-ontological Resources for Building Ontologies Author : Msc. Boris Marcelo Villazon´ Terrazas Advisor : Prof. Dr. Asuncion´ Gomez´ Perez´ 2011 ii Tribunal nombrado por el Sr. Rector Magfco. de la Universidad Politecnica´ de Madrid, el d´ıa...............de.............................de 20.... Presidente : Vocal : Vocal : Vocal : Secretario : Suplente : Suplente : Realizado el acto de defensa y lectura de la Tesis el d´ıa..........de......................de 20...... en la E.T.S.I. /Facultad...................................................... Calificacion´ .................................................................................. EL PRESIDENTE LOS VOCALES EL SECRETARIO iii iv Abstract Current well-known methodologies for building ontologies do not consider the reuse and possible subsequent re-engineering of existing knowledge resources. The ontologization of non-ontological resources has led to the design of several specific methods, techniques and tools. These are mainly specific to a particular resource type, or to a particular resource implementation. Thus, everytime ontol- ogy engineers are confronted with the task of re-engineering a new resource into an ontology, they develop ad-hoc solutions for transforming such resource into a single ontology. Within the context of the NeOn project, we propose a novel methodology for building ontology networks: the NeOn Methodology, a methodology based on sce- narios. One
    [Show full text]
  • Calculating Semantic Relatedness with Germanet
    Organismus, Lebewesen ‘organism, being’ ... ... Haustier ... ‘pet’ Baum Katze Hund ‘tree’ ‘cat’ ‘dog’ Calculating Semantic Relatedness with GermaNet Verena Henrich, Düsseldorf, 19. Februar 2015 Semantic Relatedness Measures – Overview • Path-based measures - Leacock and Chodorow (1998) - Wu and Palmer (1994) - Hirst and St-Onge (1998) - Path • Information-content-based measures - Resnik (1995) - Jiang and Conrath (1997) - Lin (1998) • Gloss-based measures: several variants of Lesk (1986) - Glosses from GermaNet and/or Wiktionary - Lexical fields from GermaNet and/or Wiktionary Semantic Relatedness Measures – Terminology • Relatedness/similarity is GNROOT GermaNet’s root node calculated between the two semantic concepts A (synset nodes) s1 and s2 B C D Haustier LCS(s1, s2) = lowest common subsumer ‘pet’ of s1 and s2 synset s1 Katze Hund synset s2 ‘cat’ ‘dog’ Semantic Relatedness Measures – Terminology GNROOT A B C depth(s2) = 6 length of the shortest path D from synset s2 to GNROOT LCS Haustier ‘pet’ s1 s2 Katze Hund ‘cat’ ‘dog’ Semantic Relatedness Measures – Terminology GNROOT A B C D length(s1, s2) = 2 LCS shortest path Haustier between s1 and s2 ‘pet’ s1 s2 Katze Hund ‘cat’ ‘dog’ Path-based Relatedness Measures GNROOT A B Similarity by Wu and Palmer (1994): 2 · depth(LCS(s1, s2)) C sim (s1, s2) = wup depth(s1) + depth(s2) D LCS sim (cat, dog) = 0.83 Haustier wup ‘pet’ where • depth(LCS) = 5 s1 s2 • depth(cat) = 6 Katze Hund • depth(dog) = 6 ‘cat’ ‘dog’ Path-based Relatedness Measures GNROOT A B LCS simwup(cat, tree) = 0.5 Organismus,
    [Show full text]
  • The Germanet Editing Tool Verena Henrich, Erhard Hinrichs University of Tübingen, Department of Linguistics Wilhelmstr
    GernEdiT – The GermaNet Editing Tool Verena Henrich, Erhard Hinrichs University of Tübingen, Department of Linguistics Wilhelmstr. 19, 72074 Tübingen, Germany E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract This paper introduces GernEdiT (short for: GermaNet Editing Tool), a new graphical user interface for the lexicographers and developers of GermaNet, the German version of the Princeton WordNet. GermaNet is a lexical-semantic net that relates German nouns, verbs, and adjectives. Traditionally, lexicographic work for extending the coverage of GermaNet utilized the Princeton WordNet development environment of lexicographer files. Due to a complex data format and no opportunity of automatic consistency checks, this process was very error prone and time consuming. The GermaNet Editing Tool GernEdiT was developed to overcome these shortcomings. The main purposes of the GernEdiT tool are, besides supporting lexicographers to access, modify, and extend GermaNet data in an easy and adaptive way, as follows: Replace the standard editing tools by a more user-friendly tool, use a relational database as data storage, support export formats in the form of XML, and facilitate internal consistency and correctness of the linguistic resource. All these core functionalities of GernEdiT along with the main aspects of the underlying lexical resource GermaNet and its current database format are presented in this paper. 1 Introduction data such as appropriate linking of lexical units with The traditional development of GermaNet1 (Kunze and synsets, connectedness of the synset graph, and Lemnitzer, 2002) was based on lexicographer files. automatic closure among relations and their inverse These were originally developed for the English counterparts.
    [Show full text]
  • LMF for a Selection of African Languages Chantal Enguehard, Mathieu Mangeot
    LMF for a selection of African Languages Chantal Enguehard, Mathieu Mangeot To cite this version: Chantal Enguehard, Mathieu Mangeot. LMF for a selection of African Languages. Francopoulo, Gil. LMF: Lexical Markup Framework, theory and practice, Hermès science, pp.8, 2013. hal-00959228 HAL Id: hal-00959228 https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00959228 Submitted on 1 Apr 2014 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Chapter 71 LMF for a selection of African Languages Chantal Enguehard LINA, 2 rue de la Houssiniere, BP 92208, 44322 Nantes Cedex 03, France Mathieu Mangeot GETALP-LIG, 41 rue des Mathématiques, BP 53 F-38041 GRENOBLE CEDEX 9 7.1. Introduction Electronic resources are scarce regarding less-resourced languages, so it is wise to take published dictionaries and convert them into a standard format usable by automated tools for natural language processing. We introduce the notion of less- resourced languages and then discuss the methodology of conversion that we have defned and implemented. The fourth part presents examples of conversion from the initial published format to the LMF format. The last part describes some diffculties encountered when representing certain information into LMF format.
    [Show full text]
  • Porting a Crowd-Sourced German Lexical Semantics Resource to Ontolex-Lemon
    Proceedings of eLex 2019 Porting a Crowd-Sourced German Lexical Semantics Resource to Ontolex-Lemon Thierry Declerck 1,2 , Melanie Siegel 3 1 German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence, Stuhlsatzenhausweg 3, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany 2 Austrian Centre for Digital Humanities, Sonnenfelsgasse 19, 1010 Vienna, Austria 3 Darmstadt University of Applied Science, Max-Planck-Str. 2, 64807 Dieburg, Germany E-mail: [email protected], [email protected] Abstract In this paper we present our work consisting of mapping the recently created open source German lexical semantics resource “Open-de-WordNet” (OdeNet) into the OntoLex-Lemon format. OdeNet was originally created in order to be integrated in the Open Multilingual Wordnet initiative. One motivation for porting OdeNet to OntoLex-Lemon is to publish in the Linguistic Linked Open Data cloud this new WordNet-compliant resource for German. At the same time we can with the help of OntoLex-Lemon link the lemmas of OdeNet to full lexical descriptions and so extend the linguistic coverage of this new WordNet resource, as we did for French, Italian and Spanish wordnets included in the Open Multilingual Wordnet collection. As a side effect, the porting of OdeNet to OntoLex-Lemon helped in discovering some issues in the original data. Keywords: Open Multilingual Wordnet; OntoLex-Lemon; OdeNet; Lexical Semantics 1. Introduction Wordnets are well-established lexical resources with a wide range of applications in various Natural Language Processing (NLP) fields, like Machine Translation, Information Retrieval, Query Expansion, Document Classification, etc. (Morato et al., 2004). For more than twenty years they have been elaborately set up and maintained by hand, especially the original Princeton WordNet of English (PWN) (Fellbaum, 1998).
    [Show full text]
  • An Experiment in Lexical Information Extraction
    LEXIE - an Experiment in Lexical Information Extraction John J. Camilleri Michael Rosner Dept. Intelligent Computer Systems Dept. Intelligent Computer Systems University of Malta University of Malta MSD2080 Msida, Malta MSD2080 Msida, Malta john @johnjcamilleri.com mike.rosner @um.edu.mt Abstract to the general approach adopted there. However, the This document investigates the possibility of ex- two main differences we see between their approach tracting lexical information automatically from and ours are that (a) Boguraev’s work was oriented the pages of a printed dictionary of Maltese. An rather heavily towards the GPSG grammatical frame- experiment was carried out on a small sample work and (b) they were able to access the original of dictionary entries using hand-crafted rules to source tapes of the dictionary. The input they used parse the entries. Although the results obtained was therefore faithful to the orginal. were quite promising, a major problem turned out to errors introduced by OCR and the incon- In our case we had to rely upon OCR input as de- sistent style adopted for writing dictionary en- scribed further in section 4. The inherent errors caused tries. certain problems. One of the aims of this work is to establish a viable method for extracting lexical entries for lesser-studied languages lacking the usual battery of language re- Keywords sources in machine readable form. Most languages of the world fall into this category. The availability of a lexicon extraction, lexical information, lexicon, semitic paper dictionary, is, however, fairly widespread, even for exotic languages so that the methods being pro- posed could provide a robust alternative to dictionary 1 Introduction extraction for a relatively large number of languages.
    [Show full text]
  • PANACEA Project Grant Agreement No.: 248064
    SEVENTH FRAMEWORK PROGRAMME THEME 3 Information and communication Technologies PANACEA Project Grant Agreement no.: 248064 Platform for Automatic, Normalized Annotation and Cost-Effective Acquisition of Language Resources for Human Language Technologies D5.1 Parallel technology tools and resources Dissemination Level: Public Delivery Date: July 16th 2010 Status – Version: Final v1.0 Author(s) and Affiliation: Pavel Pecina (DCU), Antonio Toral (DCU), Gregor Thurmair (LinguaTec), Andy Way (DCU) Parallel technology tools and resources Table of contents Table of contents ........................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 4 2 Terminology .......................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Definitions ..................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Acronyms ....................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Related documents ......................................................................................................... 6 3 Task description .................................................................................................................... 6 3.1 Alignment .....................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]