Semantic Web 0 (0) 1 1 IOS Press lemonUby - a large, interlinked, syntactically-rich for ontologies

Judith Eckle-Kohler, a,∗ John Philip McCrae b and Christian Chiarcos c a Ubiquitous Knowledge Processing (UKP) Lab, Department of Computer Science, Technische Universität Darmstadt and Information Center for Education, German Institute for International Educational Research, Germany, http://www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de b Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC), Semantic Computing Group, Universität Bielefeld, Germany, http://www.sc.cit-ec.uni-bielefeld.de c Applied Computational Linguistics (ACoLi), Department of Computer Science and Mathematics, Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Germany, http://acoli.cs.uni-frankfurt.de

Abstract. We introduce lemonUby, a new lexical resource integrated in the Semantic Web which is the result of converting data extracted from the existing large-scale linked lexical resource UBY to the lemon lexicon model. The following data from UBY were converted: WordNet, FrameNet, VerbNet, English and German , the English and German entries of Omega- Wiki, as well as links between pairs of these lexicons at the word sense level (links between VerbNet and FrameNet, VerbNet and WordNet, WordNet and FrameNet, WordNet and Wiktionary, WordNet and German OmegaWiki). We linked lemonUby to other lexical resources and linguistic terminology repositories in the Linguistic Linked Open Data cloud and outline possible applications of this new dataset.

Keywords: Lexicon model, lemon, UBY-LMF, UBY, OLiA, ISOcat, WordNet, VerbNet, FrameNet, Wiktionary, OmegaWiki

1. Introduction numerous mappings and linkings of lexica, as well as standards for representing lexical resources, such Recently, the community has begun as the ISO 24613:2008 to explore the opportunities offered by the Semantic (LMF) [13]. In this context, the LLOD cloud can be Web, lead by the formation of the Linguistic Linked considered as a new data integration platform, en- Open Data (LLOD) cloud and an increasing interest in abling linkings not only between lexical resources, but making use of Linked Open Data principles in the con- also between lexical resources and other language re- text of Natural Language Processing (NLP) and Lin- sources. guistics [7]. The use of RDF supports data integra- We extend the LLOD cloud by a new lexical re- tion and offers a large body of tools for accessing this source called lemonUby1 which is the result of con- data. Furthermore, the linked data approach gives rise verting data extracted from the existing large-scale to novel research questions in the context of language linked lexical resource UBY [14]2 to the lemon lex- resources and their application. icon model. UBY has been developed independently For lexical resources, data integration has been from Semantic Web technology. It is LMF based and in the focus of interest for many years, resulting in

1http://www.lemon-model.net/lexica/uby/ *Corresponding author, http://www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de 2http://www.ukp.tu-darmstadt.de/uby/

1570-0844/0-1900/$27.50 c 0 – IOS Press and the authors. All rights reserved 2 Eckle-Kohler et al. / a subset of the LMF-compliant UBY lexicons is pair- LexicalForm wise linked at the word sense level. The lemon lexicon writtenRep:String model has been developed for lexical resource integra- canonicalForm tion on the Semantic Web [18]. This lexicon model form otherForm abstractForm Word serves as a common interchange format for lexical re- sources on the Semantic Web and has been designed to Lexicon entry LexicalEntry Phrase represent and share lexical resources that are linked to language:String ontologies, i.e., ontology lexica. Making use of a lexi- con interchange format, such as lemon is not only im- isSenseOf sense Part portant for data integration, but also for the reuse of LexicalSense lexicons. While many lexical resources have already been in- prefRef reference altRef isReferenceOf cluded in the LLOD cloud, e.g., [3,19,24,8,21], the hiddenRef lem n LLOD cloud is still missing a large-scale lexical re- Ontology core source rich in lexical information on verbs, includ- ing aspects such as syntactic behaviour and semantic roles of a verb’s arguments. Such information is crucial Fig. 1. The core of the lemon model for lexicalizing relational knowledge, e.g., the relation like(Experiencer,Theme) can be lexicalized syntacti- this form on the Semantic Web, and (ii) to use them as cally with a verb as in "NP likes NP". interchangeable modules in NLP applications. The new resource lemonUby addresses this gap: In order to overcome this difficulty, the lemon model Along with resources for word-level semantics (Word- [18] was proposed as a common interchange format for Net [12], English and German Wiktionary,3 and the lexical resources on the Semantic Web. lemon has its English and German entries of OmegaWiki,4) we con- historical roots in LMF and thus allows easy conver- verted two syntactically rich resources from UBY to sion from LMF-like, non-linked data resources. It links the lemon format: FrameNet [2] and VerbNet [15]. For to data categories in annotation terminology reposito- further data integration, we established links between ries, and most of all, it realises a separation of lexicon lemonUby and other language resources in the LLOD and ontology layers, so that lemon lexica can be linked cloud. to existing ontologies in the linked data cloud. This core model is illustrated in Fig. 1, which de- fines the basic elements used by all lexica published as 2. Representing lexical-semantic resources as linked data. In addition to this there are a number of Linked Data: lemon modules used to model linguistic description, syntax, morphology and relationships between lexica.5 There has been significant work towards integrating lemon has been used as a basis for integrating the lexical resources using RDF and Semantic Web prin- data of the English Wiktionary with the RDF ver- ciples [6], and many resources are already available sion of WordNet [19]. lemon’s similarity to the Word- as Linked Data. Yet, representing lexical resources in Net model made this conversion straight-forward, with RDF does not per se make them semantically interop- only the need for a slight change in modelling to ac- erable. Consider, for instance, existing conversions of commodate inflectional variants of lexical entries. WordNet and FrameNet [27,23], where a simple map- ping to RDF is provided, and augmented with OWL semantics so that reasoning could be applied to the 3. Large-scale integration of lexical-semantic structure of the resource. However, the formats cho- resources: UBY and UBY-LMF sen for the RDF versions of WordNet and FrameNet are specific to the underlying data models of WordNet UBY is both a network of interlinked lexical-semantic and FrameNet. Although these lexicons are comple- resources and a project on continuous integration and mentary resources [1], it is difficult (i) to link them in linking of lexical resources for NLP applications. It is

3http://www.wiktionary.org 5More detail of the model and descriptions of the modules can be 4http://www.omegawiki.org found at http://lemon-model.net Eckle-Kohler et al. / 3 motivated by the observation that an essential require- maintained data categories in ISOcat.7 As the mapping ment in NLP is the availability of a wide range of lexi- of UBY-LMF to lemon preserves this linking, lemonU- cal resources that can be used for many different NLP by is linked to ISOcat as well. The content of ISOcat is tasks. In a continuous process, such resources are inte- also available as Linked Data [28], and therefore, pro- grated into UBY by means of (i) making them interop- vides a possible and direct way to interconnect lemon- erable and (ii) linking them to other resources in UBY Uby with other LLOD resources at the level of linguis- at the sense level. tic data categories. In UBY, interoperability is achieved by standardiz- However, ISOcat is not a formal ontology, but only a ing lexical resources according to UBY-LMF [9,10], semistructured collection of terms, and while it serves a lexicon model which is an instantiation of LMF, as a repository of definitions, it does not provide specifically designed for NLP. The lexicon model a formal data model that can be applied to a re- UBY-LMF has been developed to fully cover a wide source: ISOcat contains doublets created by differ- range of heterogeneous lexical resources without in- ent data providers, and such superficially similar cat- formation loss, which resulted in a fine-grained model egories may actually have incompatible definitions, of lexical information types (documented by data cat- e.g., gerundive [DC-1294] is an “adjective formed egories from ISOcat,6 the implementation of the ISO from a verb” (excluding verbal nouns), whereas gerun- 12620:2009 Data Category Registry) and was accom- dive [DC-2243] is a “non-finite form (...) other than panied by an extension of the ISO standard LMF by the infinitive” (including verbal nouns). Hierarchical a few elements. The extensibility of UBY-LMF was a relations between ISOcat terms are possible, but not primary design principle in order to enable the integra- obligatory, and when compared with a full-fledged tion of further (in particular automatically acquired) ontology, ISOcat terms that represent superconcepts lexical resources. for a bundle of features (e.g., ActiveVoice [DC-3064] The mapping from UBY-LMF to lemon is motivated dcif:isA VoiceProperty [DC-3551]) do not distinguish by an increase in interoperability with the Semantic relational and categorial aspects: VoiceProperty could Web and its resources, thereby making it available to be either a property that assigns ActiveVoice to a par- a new group of potential users and novel applications. ticular unit of annotation, or a concept that defines the Beyond this, mapping UBY-LMF to lemon is an in- range of such a relation. teresting task per se, because lemon links lexical re- To render UBY/ISOcat data categories in a formal sources and ontologies, whereas UBY-LMF is not re- data model, we created the OWL/DL ontology uby- lated to any ontology. Another benefit is that LMF is Cat8 which defines the semantics of linguistic terms not an open standard (in the sense that its specifica- used in lemonUby: With respect to data structures, it tion is not freely available), while lemon fully complies extends the lemon ontology,9 concepts that are equiva- with open data and open access principles. lent with lemon but have a different label are included, flagged as deprecated (and not used during the conver- sion), but left in the ontology to help UBY-LMF users 4. Converting UBY lexica to lemon: lemonUby find the equivalent lemon categories. With respect to data categories, ubyCat is linked To automatically convert data from UBY-LMF (ex- to the Ontologies of Linguistic Annotations (OLiA) tracted from UBY) to lemon, we performed a mapping [4,5],10 a modular architecture of OWL/DL ontolo- of UBY-LMF elements to lemon concepts and proper- gies that link resource-specific linguistic terminology ties. This involves two aspects: Formalizing and map- (as for UBY) to an overarching ‘Reference Model’ ping UBY data structures in a Semantic-Web compli- which (a) provides a particular view on linguistic ter- ant way, and the actual conversion of UBY data. minology, and (b) serves as an interface to multiple community-maintained terminology repositories such 4.1. Modeling Data Categories: ubyCat as ISOcat with which it is linked. Details of this linking In UBY-LMF, most of the terms used and many fea- are described in Sect. 5.1. tures (e.g., the feature “partOfSpeech” and the corre- sponding attribute values) are linked to community- 7http://www.isocat.org/rest/dcs/484 8http://purl.org/olia/ubyCat.owl 9http://www.monnet-project.eu/lemon 6http://www.isocat.org/ 10http://purl.org/olia 4 Eckle-Kohler et al. /

4.2. Converting the Data lemonUby Resource Triples Links WordNet 5,102,744 196,420 The actual conversion of UBY data was achieved by VerbNet 570,256 24,425 means of an XML style sheet transform11 that imple- FrameNet 1,110,763 61,070 ments a mapping of the UBY-LMF model to the lemon OmegaWiki English 6,173,515 113,930 model. OmegaWiki German 5,310,551 159,978 The following data from UBY were converted: Wiktionary German 4,766,917 - WordNet, FrameNet, VerbNet, English and German Wiktionary English 9,881,730 99,797 Wiktionary, the English and German entries of Ome- Total 32,916,476 327,810 gaWiki, as well as links between pairs of these lexi- Table 1 cons at the word sense level: Number of triples and links for each resource. – monolingual manual sense links for VerbNet– 12 13 in the lexicon are mapped directly to broader/narrower FrameNet, VerbNet–WordNet, and automatic relationships in the ontology. sense links for WordNet–FrameNet [25,16], and The “SemanticPredicate” class in UBY-LMF is used WordNet–Wiktionary [22]; to represent semantic frames from FrameNet [10]; – cross-lingual automatic sense links between Word- frames group senses which evoke the same kind of sit- Net and German OmegaWiki [14], and manual uation with participants taking over particular roles. inter-language links already given in OmegaWiki. Thus, senses in a FrameNet frame are semantically re- The resulting resource lemonUby has been pub- lated, but not synonymous; e.g., the verbs love and hate lished at http://lemon-model.net/lexica/ are both in the same FrameNet frame. In lemon this re- uby under an open CC-BY-SA license. The choice of lation is represented as subclass of the general lexical a share-alike license was due to UBY being published sense and linked to the rest of the lexicon by a broader under the same license. Statistics for the lemonUby re- (sense) relationship. sources including the sense links within this dataset VerbNet verb classes and their hierarchical orga- are given in table 1. An obvious gap is the German nization correspond to “Subcat[egorization]FrameSet” Wiktionary which is currently not linked to any other in UBY-LMF. VerbNet classes group verbs that share resource within lemonUby. Future work on increasing the same syntactic subcategorization frame, semantic the link density within lemonUby should address this roles, selectional restrictions, and semantic predicate. gap. Although the resulting verb classes are semantically The XML style sheet mapping between the two lex- coherent, the semantic relatedness of verb senses in a icon models UBY-LMF and lemon revealed a number VerbNet class is much more distant than in FrameNet, of differences between them. Most differences are due e.g., the verbs believe, swear and doubt are in the to the fact that lemon is a model for ontology lexica same class. Verb classes in lemon are represented by a where the lexicon and ontology layers are kept sep- broader sense as well, so lemon collapses the distinc- arate. Thus, sense representations in lemon primarily tion between FrameNet-style and VerbNet-style sense consist of references to the associated ontology where groupings. a rich and domain-specific sense definition is provided. Translations to other human languages which are UBY-LMF, on the other hand, represents fine-grained encoded as string-valued lexical items in the “Equiv- sense information in the lexicon itself. alent” class are mapped as a datatype property on the In line with previous authors [19], synsets in UBY- sense, in line with the UBY representation [17] rather LMF (provided in WordNet and OmegaWiki) are con- than attempting to construct a cross-lingual linking for sidered to be SKOS concepts and referenced like on- these terms as in the original resources (OmegaWiki tology classes in lemon. Hypernym relationships stated and Wiktionary).

11The XSL file can be downloaded at https://raw. 5. Linking lemonUby to language resources github.com/jmccrae/lemon.api/master/src/main/ resources/xslt/ubylmf2lemon.xsl 12http://verbs.colorado.edu/semlink/ We linked lemonUby to other related resources in the 13http://verbs.colorado.edu/~mpalmer/ LLOD cloud in order to make it accessible from exist- projects/ ing datasets on the Semantic Web. Eckle-Kohler et al. / 5

5.1. Linking ubyCat with repositories of linguistic Through OLiA, grammatical information from le- terminology monUby is interoperable with other LLOD resources linked to either OLiA or any of the terminology repos- We linked the data categories in ubyCat with the OLiA itories it is linked with, including GOLD and ISOcat. Reference Model, which provides formal definitions of annotation schemes for various linguistic phenom- 5.2. Linking lemonUby to lexical resources ena in about 70 languages as OWL/DL ontologies, and which is further linked with other terminology reposi- As UBY is derived from existing lexical resources, the tories such as ISOcat and GOLD [11]. simplest links to create are those to other RDF ver- The ubyCat ontology plays an important role for the linking of UBY data categories to OLiA, because it sions of the resources that compose UBY. For Word- defines grammatical concepts used in UBY-LMF in a Net, these links are simply created by mapping the data formal data model. The linking between ubyCat and of UBY, which uses WordNet 3.0, to the linked data 16 the OLiA Reference Model is implemented by sub- version of WordNet 3.0. Here, we provided links at ClassOf relationships between its concepts and the both the sense level and at the lexical entry level (lexi- Reference Model. In OLiA, this mechanism is gener- cal entries are “words” in WordNet 3.0). As can be ex- ally applied to physically separate resource-specific, pected, we found that this linking worked apart from 7 interpretation-independent information (e.g., from an senses that did not map, which we believe is due to a annotation scheme, hence the term ‘OLiA Annotation bug in the WordNet API. Model’) from resource-independent terminology (pro- In addition, we provided links at the lexical entry vided by the OLiA Reference Model) and its interpre- level to two existing resources that are also widely tation in terms of the latter (‘Linking Model’). used, i.e., RDF WordNet 2.0 [27] and an RDF instan- The separation of interpretation and interpretation- tiation of Wiktionary.17 These links at the lexical entry independent information by means of a declarative level are created if two entries share the same lemma Linking Model14 is necessary for reasons of trans- and part-of-speech information. We assume this link- parency and reversibility, because different interpreta- ing is always correct given the lemma and part-of- tions and thus, different linkings may be possible. Any speech are correct in the original resource. interpretation requires to compare information pro- For the RDF WordNet 2.0, we created such a simple vided by different communities (resource developer, linking at the lexical entry level, because a linking at terminology maintainer), it may be affected by differ- the sense level based on the sense identifiers is not pos- ences in point of view or terminological traditions fa- sible due to different WordNet versions using different miliar to the ontology engineer. With the linking con- sense identifiers. tained within a separate file, it is actually possible to The linking of the Uby version of WordNet and the provide alternative interpretations of the same Annota- RDF export of Wiktionary at the lexical entry level tion Model. is based on the assumption that corresponding word Another advantage of an ontological formalization classes share the same part-of-speech category in both of linguistic terminology is that it is more expressive than a plain hierarchy or list of terms. An example for resources. While this is mostly true, we found a few a complex linking is the verb form annotation ‘ing- word classes where we had to manually unify diverg- Form’, used for verb forms like talking in the resource. ing part-of-speech categories; these word classes were This category represents a language-specific merger of initially not covered by the linking. For instance, for present participles (he is speaking, Old English -inde) acronyms (e.g. IBM), Wiktionary assigns “Initialism” and gerunds (he began [the] speaking, Old English - as a part-of-speech, whereas WordNet counts these as inge). The linking provides a language-neutral defini- nouns. Statistics for all mappings including the cover- tion as PresentParticiple or Gerund, so that categories age of the linkings are given in table 2. across different languages can be compared more eas- ily.15 tion, OLiA ontologies employ OWL/DL. The direct mapping be- tween annotations and reference concepts originally advocated for 14http://purl.org/olia/ubyCat-link.rdf ISOcat and GOLD cannot represent this information. 15It should be noted that such a complex linking requires the use 16http://semanticweb.cs.vu.nl/lod/wn30/ of operators like and and or in the linking, to capture this informa- 17http://wiktionary.dbpedia.org 6 Eckle-Kohler et al. /

lemonUby Resource Target Resource Links Coverage of Uby Coverage of target WordNet WordNet 3.0 206,773 99.9% 99.9% WordNet WordNet 2.0 84,416 40.8% 97.8% WordNet Wiktionary English 76,294 36.9% 18.4% Table 2 Number of external links created between lemonUby and other re- sources in the LLOD cloud.

6. Applications of lemonUby 7. Conclusion and Outlook

As a web resource, lemonUby provides two main pos- We presented lemonUby, a new linked data resource sible applications: firstly as a resource to allow better which combines data from the standardized lexical re- lemon lexical description of ontology entities and secondly as source UBY with the principled model, , for rep- resenting lexical data on the web. This resource pro- a resource for NLP applications. vides not only rich information about many lexical en- As a wide coverage resource containing lexical in- tries in two languages, it is also linked at the word formation, it would be possible to link existing ontolo- sense level both within its component resources and to gies and terminology vocabularies to lemonUby and other language resources on the web. then obtain rich information about the linguistic usage We see two main directions for future research on of a given term. As an example, consider the cross- lemonUby: first, the further linking of this dataset both lingual linking of verb senses across English and Ger- within lemonUby and to other resources on the web, man available in lemonUby. Verb senses in the Ger- and second, the use of lemonUby in RDF-based NLP man OmegaWiki can be enriched by semantic role and applications in order to gain a deeper understanding of selectional preference information from VerbNet and the added value of linked lexical resources for NLP. FrameNet via the cross-lingual linking between Ger- man OmegaWiki and WordNet, and via the WordNet– VerbNet and WordNet–FrameNet linking. Currently, Acknowledgments no German lexica with these information types are The work on lemon was developed in the con- freely available for research purposes. text of the Monnet project, which is funded by the As a resource for NLP applications, lemonUby can European Union FP7 program under grant number be easily deployed into existing applications [26]. The 248458, the CITEC excellence initiative funded by the wide variety of lexical information types it offers, DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft). The work ranging from taxonomic relationships (e.g., hypon- on UBY has been supported by the Volkswagen Foun- omy) and translations to fine-grained lexical-syntactic dation as part of the Lichtenberg-Professorship Pro- information, makes it an attractive resource for many gram under grant No. I/82806. The research of Chris- different NLP tasks, such as Entity or Predicate Dis- tian Chiarcos has been partially supported by a Ger- ambiguation, to name only two. man Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) funded Recently, it has been shown that lemonUby is a valu- PostDoc fellowship at the University of Southern Cal- able resource for [20]. By mining ifornia. We thank Silvana Hartmann, Sebastian Hell- translations from lemonUby and combining them with mann, Michael Matuschek, Christian M. Meyer, and the Moses statistical machine translation, the perfor- Zijad Maksuti for their contributions to this work. Our mance of the resulting machine translation system im- special thanks go to the three reviewers Tadej Stajner,˘ proved. Vojtech˘ Svátek and Fabian M. Suchanek for their de- Furthermore, all the data from lemonUby is avail- tailed and valuable feedback. able via a SPARQL endpoint.18 Thus, ad-hoc queries can be used to access and explore the resource, for ex- References ample to find translational equivalents quickly and eas- ily. [1] Baker CF, Fellbaum C (2009) WordNet and FrameNet as com- plementary resources for annotation. In: Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Annotation Workshop, Suntec, Singapore, 18http://lemon-model.net/sparql.php ACL-IJCNLP ’09, pp 125–129 Eckle-Kohler et al. / 7

[2] Baker CF, Fillmore CJ, Lowe JB (1998) The Berkeley gorithm. In: Proceedings of the International Conference FrameNet project. In: Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meet- RANLP-2009, Association for Computational Linguistics, ing of the Association for Computational Linguistics and Borovets, Bulgaria, pp 208–213 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics [17] Matuschek M, Meyer CM, Gurevych I (2013) Multilin- (COLING-ACL’98), Montreal, Canada, pp 86–90 gual Knowledge in Aligned Wiktionary and OmegaWiki for [3] Bizer C, Lehmann J, Kobilarov G, Auer S, Becker C, Cyganiak Computer-Aided Translation. Translation: Corpora, Computa- R, Hellmann S (2009) DBpedia – A Crystallization Point for tion, Cognition (TC3), vol 3, no 1 pp 87–118 the Web of Data. Journal of Web Semantics: Science, Services [18] McCrae J, Aguado-de Cea G, Buitelaar P, Cimiano P, Declerck and Agents on the World Wide Web 7(3):154–165 T, Gómez-Pérez A, Gracia J, Hollink L, Montiel-Ponsoda E, [4] Chiarcos C (2008) An ontology of linguistic annotations. LDV Spohr D, Wunner T (2012) Interchanging lexical resources Forum 23(1):1–16 on the Semantic Web. Language Resources and Evaluation [5] Chiarcos C (2012) Ontologies of linguistic annotation: Survey 46:701–719, and perspectives. In: Proceedings of the Eighth International [19] McCrae J, Montiel-Ponsoda E, Cimiano P (2012) Integrating Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC), WordNet and Wiktionary with lemon. Linked Data in Linguis- pp 303–310 tics pp 25–34 [6] Chiarcos C, Hellmann S, Nordhoff S (2011) Towards a linguis- [20] McCrae JP, Cimiano P (2013) Mining translations from the tic linked open data cloud: The open linguistics working group. web of open linked data. In: Proceedings of the Joint Work- Traitement automatique des langues 52(3):245–275 shop on NLP&LOD and SWAIE: Semantic Web, Linked Open [7] Chiarcos C, Nordhoff S, Hellmann S (eds) (2012) Linked Data Data and , INCOMA Ltd. Shoumen, in Linguistics. Representing Language Data and Metadata. BULGARIA, Hissar, Bulgaria, pp 8–11, URL http://www. Springer, Heidelberg aclweb.org/anthology/W13-5203 [8] De Melo G, Weikum G (2008) Language as a foundation of [21] de Melo G, Weikum G (2008) Language as a Foundation of the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Se- the Semantic Web. In: Bizer C, Joshi A (eds) Proceedings of mantic Web Conference (ISWC 2008), vol 401 the Poster and Demonstration Session at the 7th International [9] Eckle-Kohler J, Gurevych I, Hartmann S, Matuschek M, Meyer Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2008), CEUR, Karlsruhe, CM (2012) UBY-LMF — A Uniform Format for Standardizing Germany, CEUR WS, vol 401 Heterogeneous Lexical-Semantic Resources in ISO-LMF. In: [22] Meyer CM, Gurevych I (2011) What Psycholinguists Know Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Language About Chemistry: Aligning Wiktionary and WordNet for In- Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2012), Istanbul, Turkey, pp creased Domain Coverage. In: Proceedings of the 5th Interna- 275–282 tional Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (IJC- [10] Eckle-Kohler J, Gurevych I, Hartmann S, Matuschek M, Meyer NLP), Chiang Mai, Thailand, pp 883–892 CM (2013) UBY-LMF - exploring the boundaries of language- [23] Narayanan S, Baker C, Fillmore C, Petruck M (2003) independent lexicon models. In: Francopoulo G (ed) LMF: FrameNet meets the semantic web: Lexical semantics for the Lexical Markup Framework, theory and practice, ISTE - Wi- web. The Semantic Web-ISWC 2003 pp 771–787 ley, London, UK, pp 145–156 [24] Navigli R (2012) BabelNet goes to the (Multilingual) Semantic [11] Farrar S, Langendoen DT (2003) Markup and the GOLD on- Web. In: Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Multilingual tology. In: EMELD Workshop on Digitizing and Annotating Semantic Web, pp 6–15 Text and Field Recordings, Michigan State University, pp 1–19 [25] Tonelli S, Pighin D (2009) New Features for FrameNet - Word- [12] Fellbaum C (1998) WordNet. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA Net Mapping. In: Proceedings of the Thirteenth Conference [13] Francopoulo G, Bel N, George M, Calzolari N, Monachini M, on Computational Natural Language Learning (CoNLL-2009), Pet M, Soria C (2006) Lexical Markup Framework (LMF). In: Association for Computational Linguistics, Boulder, Colorado, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language pp 219–227 Resources and Evaluation (LREC), Genoa, Italy, pp 233–236 [26] Unger C, Hieber F, Cimiano P (2010) Generating LTAG gram- [14] Gurevych I, Eckle-Kohler J, Hartmann S, Matuschek M, Meyer mars from a lexicon-ontology interface. In: Proceedings of the CM, Wirth C (2012) UBY - A Large-Scale Unified Lexical- 10th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Semantic Resource. In: Proceedings of the 13th Conference Related Formalisms (TAG+10), pp 61–68 of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational [27] Van Assem M, Gangemi A, Schreiber G (2006) Conversion of Linguistics (EACL 2012), Avignon, France, pp 580–590 WordNet to a standard RDF/OWL representation. In: Proceed- [15] Kipper K, Korhonen A, Ryant N, Palmer M (2008) A Large- ings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Re- scale Classification of English Verbs. Language Resources and sources and Evaluation LREC’06, Citeseer, pp 237–242 Evaluation 42:21–40 [28] Windhouwer M, Wright SE (2012) Linking to linguistic data [16] Laparra E, Rigau G (2009) Integrating WordNet and FrameNet categories in ISOcat. In: [7], pp 99–107 using a Knowledge-based Word Sense Disambiguation Al-