DOCSLIB.ORG

A Bottom-Up Comparative Study of Eurowordnet and Wordnet 3.0 Lexical and Semantic Relations

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Bottom-Up Comparative Study of Eurowordnet and Wordnet 3.0 Lexical and Semantic Relations A Bottom-up Comparative Study of EuroWordNet and WordNet 3.0 Lexical and Semantic Relations Maria Teresa Pazienzaa, Armando Stellatoa, Alexandra Tudoracheab a) AI Research Group, Dept. of Computer Science, b) Dept. of Cybernetics, Statistics and Economic Systems and Production University of Rome, Informatics, Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest Tor Vergata Calea Dorobanţilor 15-17, 010552, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy Bucharest, Romania {pazienza,stellato,tudorache}@info.uniroma2.it [email protected] Abstract The paper presents a comparative study of semantic and lexical relations defined and adopted in WordNet and EuroWordNet. This document describes the experimental observations achieved through the analysis of data from different WordNet versions and EuroWordNet distributions for different languages, during the development of JMWNL (Java Multilingual WordNet Library), an extensible multilingual library for accessing WordNet-like resources in different languages and formats. The goal of this work was to realize an operative mapping between the relations defined in the two lexical resources and to unify library access and content navigation methods for both WordNet and EuroWordNet. The analysis focused on similarities, differences, semantic overlaps or inclusions, factual misinterpretations and inconsistencies between the intended and practical use of each single relation defined in these two linguistic resources. The paper details with examples the produced mapping, discussing required operations which implied merging, extending or simply keeping separate the examined relations. This document describes the experimental observations 1. Introduction achieved through the analysis of data from different We introduce a comparative study of semantic and WordNet versions and EuroWordNet distributions for lexical relations defined and adopted in two renowned different languages, during the development of JMWNL. lexical databases: WordNet (Miller, Beckwith, Fellbaum, The paper focuses on relations mapping, cross part-of- Gross, & Miller, 1993; Fellbaum, 1998) and speech relations and the partial mapping of Fuzzynym EuroWordNet (Vossen, 1998). The study was conducted relations like Derivationally Related Form. during the development of the Java Multi WordNet Library (JMWNL), an extensible multilingual library for 2. WordNet and EuroWordNet accessing WordNet-like resources in different languages WordNet is a large lexical database of English. Nouns, and formats, based on John Didion’s JWNL library verbs, adjectives and adverbs are grouped into sets of (http://sourceforge.net/projects/jwordnet). The analysis cognitive synonyms (synsets), each expressing a distinct and comparison between the two resources was carried concept. WordNet “Synsets are interlinked by means of out in the pre-design stage of development of the above conceptual-semantic and lexical relations” (About library. The aim was to realize an operative mapping WordNet, 2006). Its European counterpart, between the relations defined in the two lexical resources EuroWordNet, is a multilingual database with wordnets and to unify library access and content navigation for several European languages (Dutch, Italian, Spanish, methods for both WordNet and EuroWordNet. The work German, French, Czech and Estonian). The wordnets are was conducted bottom-up by analyzing the raw data and structured in the same way as the American wordnet for several examples either from English WordNet and English in terms of synsets with basic semantic relations different language EuroWordNet (EWN from now on) between them (Vossen, EuroWordNet Web Abstract, resources. The analysis focused on similarities, 2001). differences, semantic overlaps or inclusions, factual EuroWordNet is based on the 1998 WordNet version 1.5 misinterpretations and inconsistencies between the (Fellbaum, 1998) and contains more (and different) intended and practical use of each single relation defined relations than current English WordNet (version 3.0 - in these two linguistic resources. 2007), so a one- to-one relations mapping is not The mapping between the relations defined in the two achievable. resources required a two layered investigation. In most Although the structure of various wordnets is similar and cases it sufficed to establish a template level mapping consistent, the relations defined in each version are not like telling that has_hyperonym is equivalent – at least in identical and moreover some wordnets are richer in the intentions of the lexicographers – to hypernym. This relations than others. way, in theory, all instantiated relationships based on these two relations could be interchangeable. In other 3. Overall Mapping Statistics cases, (even partial) mappings between apparently Our analysis revealed that only some EuroWordNet different relations emerged by looking at a vast quantity relations could be mapped directly with WordNet of sample data and studying cross-linguistic similarities. relations. Other EuroWordNet relations had to be added. EuroWordNet Has Holo Madeof Relation EuroWordNet Has Mero Madeof Relation 0 @2817@ WORD_MEANING 0 @4493@ WORD_MEANING 1 PART_OF_SPEECH "n" 1 PART_OF_SPEECH "n" 1 VARIANTS 1 VARIANTS 2 LITERAL "seta" 2 LITERAL "steccato" 3 SENSE 2 3 SENSE 1 3 STATUS new 3 STATUS new 3 EXTERNAL_INFO 3 EXTERNAL_INFO 4 SOURCE_ID 1 4 SOURCE_ID 1 5 TEXT_KEY "0-0b" 5 TEXT_KEY "0-1a" 1 INTERNAL_LINKS 1 INTERNAL_LINKS 2 RELATION "has_hyperonym" 2 RELATION "has_mero_madeof" 3 TARGET_CONCEPT 3 TARGET_CONCEPT 4 PART_OF_SPEECH "n" 4 PART_OF_SPEECH "n" 4 LITERAL "tessuto" 4 LITERAL "palo" 5 SENSE 1 5 SENSE 1 2 RELATION "has_holo_madeof" 1 EQ_LINKS 3 TARGET_CONCEPT 2 EQ_RELATION "eq_synonym" 4 PART_OF_SPEECH "n" 3 TARGET_ILI 4 LITERAL "abito" 4 PART_OF_SPEECH "n" 5 SENSE 1 4 WORDNET_OFFSET 2963587 Figure 1: EuroWordNet Has_Holo_Madeof and Has_Mero_Madeof Relations English WordNet has in total 46 relations defined on all (words appearing in the same synset are, by definition, parts of speech while EuroWordNet has more than one synonyms), while, in the case of antonymy, EWN tight hundred relations. During our integration for building the and loose antonyms both collapse in the ANTONYM JMWNL library we could map directly 32 EuroWordNet definition in WordNet (see section 4.4). relations and we had to add 17 new relations that were present in EuroWordNet from which 10 are defined 4.2. Meronymy and Holonymy across multiple parts of speech (XPOS). We created In EuroWordNet HAS_MERO/HAS_HOLO with all their these 10 new relations using the defined WordNet variants express respectively HOLONYM/MERONYM relation pointer symbols adding an “x” character as relations. prefix to express the cross relationship. More specifically, in EuroWordNet, HAS MERO MADEOF We found in total 21 WordNet relations that are not and HAS HOLO MADEOF relations have a partial overlap present in EuroWordNet and that couldn’t be mapped with both SUBSTANCE MERONYM/HOLONYM and PART even partially. MERONYM/HOLONYM. In Figure 1 are shown two examples of HAS MERO 4. Comparative results and observations MADEOF and HAS HOLO MADEOF relations. The first As previously mentioned, it is not possible to build a example is the overlap with SUBSTANCE HOLONYM: complete 1-to-1 mapping between WordNet and “abito” (suit) is made of “seta” (silk). EuroWordNet lexical and semantic relations. However a The second example shows the overlap of HAS MERO correct and complete record of all lexical and semantic MADEOF with PART MERONYM: “palo” (pole) is relations is indispensable for building multilingual part meronym of “steccato” (wooden fence). applications that use available wordnets as their lexical In Table 1 are presented both HAS MERO PART and HAS databases. Moreover, it is necessary to establish HOLO MEMBER relations in parallel starting from the relationships between their models to create the grounds same base concept: “tree”. Looking at this example we for working consistently across different languages. could conclude that there are not big differences between This section will show the differences between WordNet definitions of the relations for such base concepts. and EuroWordNet identifications of lexical and semantic relations focusing on the most important EuroWordNet English Base relations and their correspondent WordNet ones. Relation Italian French Transla Word tion 4.1. Synonymy and Antonymy frutto N/A fruit Unlike in WordNet, EuroWordNet distinguishes between corteccia souche bark tight and loose synonymy and antonymy relationships, Albero foglia N/A leaf (It) Has mero branche introducing two relations respectively called NEAR ramo branch SYNONYM and NEAR ANTONYM.: for example, in Italian Arbre part d'arbre EuroWordNet the word "nemico" (“enemy”, in English) (Fr) tronco tronc trunk is NEAR_ANTONYM of "alleato" (Eng. “allay”), while in Tree cima cime flower original WordNet “enemy” is only direct ANTONYM of (En) radice N/A root Has holo “friend”. bosco bois wood These two relations can be mapped directly as SIMILAR member and in WordNet. The tight version of TO ANTONYM Table 1: Multilingual Holonymy and Meronymy Relations synonymy is implicit in the WordNet definition of synset 2 RELATION "xpos_fuzzynym" EuroWordNet Fuzzynym Relation 3 TARGET_CONCEPT 4 PART_OF_SPEECH "n" 0 @317@ WORD_MEANING 4 LITERAL "classicismo" 1 PART_OF_SPEECH "a" 5 SENSE 2 1 VARIANTS 2 RELATION "has_hyperonym" 2 LITERAL "classico" 3 TARGET_CONCEPT 3 SENSE 1 4 PART_OF_SPEECH "a" 3 DEFINITION "attinente al classicismo 4 LITERAL "relativo"
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CS460/626 : Natural Language Processing/Speech, NLP and the Web
    CS460/626 : Natural Language Processing/Speech, NLP and the Web Lecture 24, 25, 26 Wordnet Pushpak Bhattacharyya CSE Dept., IIT Bombay 17th and 19th (morning and night), 2013 NLP Trinity Problem Semantics NLP Trinity Parsing Part of Speech Tagging Morph Analysis Marathi French HMM Hindi English Language CRF MEMM Algorithm NLP Layer Discourse and Corefernce Increased Semantics Extraction Complexity Of Processing Parsing Chunking POS tagging Morphology Background Classification of Words Word Content Function Word Word Verb Noun Adjective Adverb Prepo Conjun Pronoun Interjection sition ction NLP: Thy Name is Disambiguation A word can have multiple meanings and A meaning can have multiple words Word with multiple meanings Where there is a will, Where there is a will, There are hundreds of relatives Where there is a will There is a way There are hundreds of relatives A meaning can have multiple words Proverb “A cheat never prospers” Proverb: “A cheat never prospers but can get rich faster” WSD should be distinguished from structural ambiguity Correct groupings a must … Iran quake kills 87, 400 injured When it rains cats and dogs run for cover Should be distinguished from structural ambiguity Correct groupings a must … Iran quake kills 87, 400 injured When it rains, cats and dogs runs for cover When it rains cats and dogs, run for cover Groups of words (Multiwords) and names can be ambiguous Broken guitar for sale, no strings attached (Pun) Washington voted Washington to power pujaa ne pujaa ke liye phul todaa (Pujaa plucked
    [Show full text]
  • Machine Reading = Text Understanding! David Israel! What Is It to Understand a Text? !
    Machine Reading = Text Understanding! David Israel! What is it to Understand a Text? ! • To understand a text — starting with a single sentence — is to:! • determine its truth (perhaps along with the evidence for its truth)! ! • determine its truth-conditions (roughly: what must the world be like for it to be true)! • So one doesn’t have to check how the world actually is — that is whether the sentence is true! • calculate its entailments! • take — or at least determine — appropriate action in light of it (and some given preferences/goals/desires)! • translate it accurately into another language! • and what does accuracy come to?! • ground it in a cognitively plausible conceptual space! • …….! • These are not necessarily competing alternatives! ! For Contrast: What is it to Engage Intelligently in a Dialogue? ! • Respond appropriately to what your dialogue partner has just said (and done)! • Typically, taking into account the overall purpose(s) of the interaction and the current state of that interaction (the dialogue state)! • Compare and contrast dialogue between “equals” and between a human and a computer, trying to assist the human ! • Siri is a very simple example of the latter! A Little Ancient History of Dialogue Systems! STUDENT (Bobrow 1964) Question-Answering: Word problems in simple algebra! “If the number of customers Tom gets is twice the square of 20% of the number of advertisements he runs, and the number of advertisements he runs is 45, what is the number of customers Tom gets?” ! Overview of the method ! . 1 Map referential expressions to variables. ! ! . 2 Use regular expression templates to identify and transform mathematical expressions.
    [Show full text]
  • Automatic Labeling of Troponymy for Chinese Verbs
    Automatic labeling of troponymy for Chinese verbs 羅巧Ê Chiao-Shan Lo*+ s!蓉 Yi-Rung Chen+ [email protected] [email protected] 林芝Q Chih-Yu Lin+ 謝舒ñ Shu-Kai Hsieh*+ [email protected] [email protected] *Lab of Linguistic Ontology, Language Processing and e-Humanities, +Graduate School of English/Linguistics, National Taiwan Normal University Abstract 以同©^Æ與^Y語意關¶Ë而成的^Y知X«，如ñ語^² (Wordnet)、P語^ ² (EuroWordnet)I，已有E分的研v，^²的úË_已øv完善。ú¼ø同的目的，- 研b語言@¦已úË'規!K-文^Y²路 (Chinese Wordnet,CWN)，è(Ð供完t的 -文­YK^©@分。6而，(目MK-文^Y²路ûq-，1¼目M;要/¡(ºº$ 定來標記同©^ÆK間的語意關Â，因d這些標記KxÏ尚*T成可L應(K一定規!。 因d，,Ç文章y%針對動^K間的上下M^Y語意關 (Troponymy)，Ðú一.ê動標 記的¹法。我們希望藉1句法上y定的句型 (lexical syntactic pattern)，úË一個能 ê 動½取ú動^上下M的ûq。透N^©意$定原G的U0，P果o:，dûqê動½取ú 的動^上M^，cº率將近~分K七A。,研v盼能將,¹法應(¼c(|U-的-文^ ²ê動語意關Â標記，以Ê知X,體Kê動úË，2而能有H率的úË完善的-文^Y知 XÇ源。 關關關uuu^^^：-文^Y²路、語©關Âê動標記、動^^Y語© Abstract Synset and semantic relation based lexical knowledge base such as wordnet, have been well-studied and constructed in English and other European languages (EuroWordnet). The Chinese wordnet (CWN) has been launched by Academia Sinica basing on the similar paradigm. The synset that each word sense locates in CWN are manually labeled, how- ever, the lexical semantic relations among synsets are not fully constructed yet. In this present paper, we try to propose a lexical pattern-based algorithm which can automatically discover the semantic relations among verbs, especially the troponymy relation. There are many ways that the structure of a language can indicate the meaning of lexical items. For Chinese verbs, we identify two sets of lexical syntactic patterns denoting the concept of hypernymy-troponymy relation.
    [Show full text]
  • Ontology and the Lexicon
    Ontology and the Lexicon Graeme Hirst Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto, Toronto M5S 3G4, Ontario, Canada; [email protected] Summary. A lexicon is a linguistic object and hence is not the same thing as an ontology, which is non-linguistic. Nonetheless, word senses are in many ways similar to ontological concepts and the relationships found between word senses resemble the relationships found between concepts. Although the arbitrary and semi-arbitrary distinctions made by natural lan- guages limit the degree to which these similarities can be exploited, a lexicon can nonetheless serve in the development of an ontology, especially in a technical domain. 1 Lexicons and lexical knowledge 1.1 Lexicons A lexicon is a list of words in a language—a vocabulary—along with some knowl- edge of how each word is used. A lexicon may be general or domain-specific; we might have, for example, a lexicon of several thousand common words of English or German, or a lexicon of the technical terms of dentistry in some language. The words that are of interest are usually open-class or content words, such as nouns, verbs, and adjectives, rather than closed-class or grammatical function words, such as articles, pronouns, and prepositions, whose behaviour is more tightly bound to the grammar of the language. A lexicon may also include multi-word expressions such as fixed phrases (by and large), phrasal verbs (tear apart), and other common expressions (merry Christmas!; teach someone ’s grandmother to suck eggs; Elvis has left the building). ! " Each word or phrase in a lexicon is described in a lexical entry; exactly what is included in each entry depends on the purpose of the particular lexicon.
    [Show full text]
  • Lexical Scoring System of Lexical Chain for Quranic Document Retrieval
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by UKM Journal Article Repository GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies 59 Volume 18(2), May 2018 http://doi.org/10.17576/gema-2018-1802-05 Lexical Scoring System of Lexical Chain for Quranic Document Retrieval Hamed Zakeri Rad [email protected] Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Sabrina Tiun [email protected] Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Saidah Saad [email protected] Faculty of Information Science and Technology, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia ABSTRACT An Information Retrieval (IR) system aims to extract information based on a query made by a user on a particular subject from an extensive collection of text. IR is a process through which information is retrieved by submitting a query by a user in the form of keywords or to match words. In the Al-Quran, verses of the same or comparable topics are scattered throughout the text in different chapters, and it is therefore difficult for users to remember the many keywords of the verses. Therefore, in such situations, retrieving information using semantically related words is useful. In well-composed documents, the semantic integrity of the text (coherence) exists between the words. Lexical cohesion is the results of chains of related words that contribute to the continuity of the lexical meaning found within the text are a direct result of text being about the same thing (i.e. topic, etc.). This indicates that using an IR system and lexical chains are a useful and appropriate method for representing documents with concepts rather than using terms in order to have successful retrieval based on semantic relations.
    [Show full text]
  • WN-EWN Relations
    A Bottom-up Comparative Study of EuroWordNet and WordNet 3.0 Lexical and Semantic Relations Maria Teresa Pazienzaa, Armando Stellatoa, Alexandra Tudoracheab a) AI Research Group, Dept. of Computer Science, b) Dept. of Cybernetics, Statistics and Economic Systems and Production University of Rome, Informatics, Academy of Economic Studies Bucharest Tor Vergata Calea Dorobanţilor 15-17, 010552, Via del Politecnico 1, 00133 Rome, Italy Bucharest, Romania {pazienza,stellato,tudorache}@info.uniroma2.it [email protected] Abstract The paper presents a comparative study of semantic and lexical relations defined and adopted in WordNet and EuroWordNet. This document describes the experimental observations achieved through the analysis of data from different WordNet versions and EuroWordNet distributions for different languages, during the development of JMWNL (Java Multilingual WordNet Library), an extensible multilingual library for accessing WordNet-like resources in different languages and formats. The goal of this work was to realize an operative mapping between the relations defined in the two lexical resources and to unify library access and content navigation methods for both WordNet and EuroWordNet. The analysis focused on similarities, differences, semantic overlaps or inclusions, factual misinterpretations and inconsistencies between the intended and practical use of each single relation defined in these two linguistic resources. The paper details with examples the produced mapping, discussing required operations which implied merging, extending or simply keeping separate the examined relations. This document describes the experimental observations 1. Introduction achieved through the analysis of data from different We introduce a comparative study of semantic and WordNet versions and EuroWordNet distributions for lexical relations defined and adopted in two renowned different languages, during the development of JMWNL.
    [Show full text]
  • University of Hagen at CLEF 2004: Indexing and Translating Concepts for the GIRT Task
    University of Hagen at CLEF 2004: Indexing and Translating Concepts for the GIRT Task Johannes Leveling, Sven Hartrumpf Intelligent Information and Communication Systems University of Hagen (FernUniversitat¨ in Hagen) 58084 Hagen, Germany {Johannes.Leveling,Sven.Hartrumpf}@fernuni-hagen.de Abstract This paper describes the work done at the University of Hagen for our participation at the German Indexing and Retrieval Test (GIRT) task of the CLEF 2004 evaluation campaign. We conducted both monolingual and bilingual information retrieval experiments. For monolin- gual experiments with the German document collection, the focus is on applying and compar- ing three indexing methods targeting full word forms, disambiguated concepts, and extended semantic networks. The bilingual experiments for retrieving English documents for German topics rely on translating and expanding query terms based on a ranking of semantically related English terms for a German concept. English translations are compiled from heterogeneous resources, including multilingual lexicons such as EuroWordNet and dictionaries available online. 1 Introduction This paper investigates the performance of different indexing methods and automated retrieval strategies for the second participation in the University of Hagen in the evaluation campaign of the Cross Language Evaluation Forum (CLEF). In 2003, retrieval strategies based on generating query variants for a natural language (NL) query were compared (Leveling, 2003). The result of our best experiment in 2003 with respect to mean average precision (MAP) was 0.2064 for a run using both topic title and description. Before presenting the different approaches and results for monolingual and bilingual retrieval experi- ments with the GIRT documents (German Indexing and Retrieval Test database, see Kluck and Gey (2001)) in separate sections, a short overview of the analysis and transformation of natural language queries and documents is given.
    [Show full text]
  • Neural Methods Towards Concept Discovery from Text Via Knowledge Transfer
    Neural Methods Towards Concept Discovery from Text via Knowledge Transfer DISSERTATION Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Manirupa Das, B.E., M.S. Graduate Program in Computer Science and Engineering The Ohio State University 2019 Dissertation Committee: Prof Rajiv Ramnath, Advisor Prof Eric Fosler-Lussier, Advisor Prof Huan Sun c Copyright by Manirupa Das 2019 ABSTRACT Novel contexts, consisting of a set of terms referring to one or more concepts, often arise in real-world querying scenarios such as; a complex search query into a document retrieval system or a nuanced subjective natural language question. The concepts in these queries may not directly refer to entities or canonical concept forms occurring in any fact-based or rule-based knowledge source such as a knowledge base or on- tology. Thus, in addressing the complex information needs expressed by such novel contexts, systems using only such sources can fall short. Moreover, hidden associa- tions meaningful in the current context, may not exist in a single document, but in a collection, between matching candidate concepts having different surface realizations, via alternate lexical forms. These may refer to underlying latent concepts, i.e., exist- ing or conceived concepts or semantic classes that are accessible only via their surface forms. Inferring these latent concept associations in an implicit manner, by transfer- ring knowledge from the same domain { within a collection, or from across domains (different collections), can potentially better address such novel contexts. Thus latent concept associations may act as a proxy for a novel context.
    [Show full text]
  • Preliminaries to the Preparation of a Word Net for Tamil
    LANGUAGE IN INDIA Strength for Today and Bright Hope for Tomorrow Volume 14:3 March 2014 ISSN 1930-2940 Managing Editor: M. S. Thirumalai, Ph.D. Editors: B. Mallikarjun, Ph.D. Sam Mohanlal, Ph.D. B. A. Sharada, Ph.D. A. R. Fatihi, Ph.D. Lakhan Gusain, Ph.D. Jennifer Marie Bayer, Ph.D. S. M. Ravichandran, Ph.D. G. Baskaran, Ph.D. L. Ramamoorthy, Ph.D. C. Subburaman, Ph.D. (Economics) Assistant Managing Editor: Swarna Thirumalai, M.A. Malayalam WordNet Dr. S. Rajendran & Dr. Soman, K.P ==================================================================== Abstract Work on Malayalam WordNet was initiated in Amrita Vishvavidya Peetam, Coimbatore in December, 2011 as a part of the project entitled “Development of Dravidian WordNet: An Integrated WordNet for Telugu, Tamil, Kannada and Malayalam”, funded by Department of Information Technology, MCIT, Govt. of India. The main objective of the project is to build WordNets for Dravidian languages by making use of the already built Hindi WordNet under the project scheme IndowordNet. Hindi WordNet has been built based on Princeton English WordNet which is a component of EuroWordNet. The main objective of EuroWordNet is to develop an extensive and high quality of multilingual database with WordNets for several languages (mainly European Languages such as French, German, Czech, Italian, etc.) in a cost-effective manner. On similar line, IndoWordNet is being built for Indian languages. Malayalam WordNet is a component of Dravidian WordNet which in turn is the component of IndoWordNet. Malayalam WordNet is an online lexical database. It is useful for many applications of Natural Language Processing. Language in India www.languageinindia.com ISSN 1930-2940 14:3 March 2014 Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Automatic Extraction of Semantic Relationships for Wordnet by Means of Pattern Learning from Wikipedia?
    Automatic extraction of semantic relationships for WordNet by means of pattern learning from Wikipedia? Maria Ruiz-Casado, Enrique Alfonseca and Pablo Castells Computer Science Dep., Universidad Autonoma de Madrid, 28049 Madrid, Spain {Maria.Ruiz,Enrique.Alfonseca,Pablo.Castells}@uam.es Abstract. This paper describes an automatic approach to identify lexical pat- terns which represent semantic relationships between concepts, from an on-line encyclopedia. Next, these patterns can be applied to extend existing ontologies or semantic networks with new relations. The experiments have been performed with the Simple English Wikipedia and WordNet 1.7. A new algorithm has been devised for automatically generalising the lexical patterns found in the encyclo- pedia entries. We have found general patterns for the hyperonymy, hyponymy, holonymy and meronymy relations and, using them, we have extracted more than 1200 new relationships that did not appear in WordNet originally. The precision of these relationships ranges between 0.61 and 0.69, depending on the relation. 1 Introduction The exponential growth of the amount of data in the World Wide Web (WWW) requires the automatising of processes like searching, retrieving and maintaining information. One of the difficulties that prevents the complete automatising of those processes [1] is the fact that the contents in the WWW are presented mainly in natural language, whose ambiguities are hard to be processed by a machine. The Semantic Web (SW) constitutes an initiative to extend the web with machine readable contents and automated services far beyond current capabilities [2]. A com- mon practise is the annotation of the contents of web pages using an ontology.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing a Model of Contexts for Word-Sense Disambiguation in a Semantic Network
    Designing a Model of Contexts for Word-Sense Disambiguation in a Semantic Network Egor Dubenetskiy[0000−0002−4681−5518], Evgenij Tsopa[0000−0002−7473−3368], Sergey Klimenkov[0000−0001−5496−6765], and Alexander Pokid[0000−0003−1733−4042] Computer Science Department, ITMO University, Saint Petersburg, Russia https://en.itmo.ru/en/ {egor.dubenetskiy,evgenij.tsopa,serge.klimenkov,alexander.pokid}@cs.ifmo.ru Abstract. This paper is dedicated to the problem of word-sense disam- biguation in natural language processing. In this study, relations between a word’s sense and its surrounding context are examined and a proba- bilistic model of a context is designed. An approach for testing such a model and developing a disambiguation algorithm is described as well. Keywords: Word-sense disambiguation · Resolving homonymy · Se- mantic analysis · Semantic network · Natural language processing 1 Introduction One of the crucial problems of artificial intelligence is natural language pro- cessing. To get closer to the solution of this problem, semantic networks are created that store semantic information regarding one or several domains, and algorithms over these networks are developed.[1] One of the difficulties met in semantic analysis is word-sense disambiguation. The WSD problem is to determine what sense corresponds to an ambiguous word depending on the context. It is caused by such phenomena in languages like homonymy and polysemy.[2]. Nowadays, two types of approaches[3] are con- tinuously improved and developed: supervised WSD[4,5], where manually sense- annotated corpora are used for models training, and knowledge-based[6,7], when developed algorithms rely on artificially constructed structures or content.
    [Show full text]
  • Proposal of Structure and Information Organization for Bullipedia
    Proposal of Structure and Information Organization for Bullipedia Mirjam Johannes Master Program in Cognitive Science and Language, Department of General Linguistics, Universitat de Barcelona Under the supervision of Dr. M. Antònia Martí Antonín Universitat de Barcelona Dr. Marta Vila Rigat Unitat UB-Bullipèdia, Universitat de Barcelona September 2014 Contents 1. Motivation ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2. Basic concepts ................................................................................................................................. 5 2.1. Knowledge representation ...................................................................................................... 5 2.1.1 Semantic Networks.......................................................................................................... 6 2.2. Lexical semantics ..................................................................................................................... 8 2.2.1. WordNet .......................................................................................................................... 8 2.3. The world of Wikipedia ......................................................................................................... 13 2.3.1. Features of the Wikipedia structure ............................................................................. 14 2.3.2. Drawbacks of the Wikipedia structure .........................................................................
    [Show full text]