2006 OntologizingSemanticRelations

From GM-RKB
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Subject Headings: Semantic Relation, Ontology, Ontology Population Task.

Notes

Cited By

Quotes

Abstract

1 Introduction

  • NLP researchers have developed many algorithms for mining knowledge from text and the Web, including facts (Etzioni et al. 2005), semantic lexicons (Riloff and Shepherd 1997), concept lists (Lin and Pantel 2002), and word similarity lists (Hindle 1990). Many recent efforts have also focused on extracting binary semantic relations between entities, such as entailments (Szpektor et al. 2004), is-a (Ravichandran and Hovy 2002), part-of (Girju et al. 2003), and other relations. The output of most of these systems is flat lists of lexical semantic knowledge such as “Italy is-a country” and “orange similar-to blue”. However, using this knowledge beyond simple keyword matching, for example in inferences, requires it to be linked into formal semantic repositories such as ontologies or term banks like WordNet (Fellbaum 1998).
  • Pantel (2005) defined the task of ontologizing a lexical semantic resource as linking its terms to the concepts in a WordNet-like hierarchy. For example, “orange similar-to blue” ontologizes in WordNet to “orange#2 similar-to blue#1” and “orange#2 similar-to blue#2”. In his framework, Pantel proposed a method of inducing ontological co-occurrence vectors 1 which are subsequently used to ontologize unknown terms into WordNet with 74% accuracy.
  • In this paper, we take the next step and explore two algorithms for ontologizing binary semantic relations into WordNet and we present empirical results on the task of attaching part-of and causation relations. Formally, given an instance (x, r, y) of a binary relation r between terms x and y, the ontologizing task is to identify the WordNet senses of x and y where r holds. For example, the instance (proton, PART-OF, element) ontologizes into WordNet as (proton#1, PART-OF, element#2).

References

  • 1. Eneko Agirre, German Rigau, Word sense disambiguation using Conceptual Density, Proceedings of the 16th conference on Computational linguistics, August 05-09, 1996, Copenhagen, Denmark doi:10.3115/992628.992635
  • 2. Eneko Agirre; Ansa, O.; Martinez, D.; and Eduard Hovy 2001. Enriching WordNet concepts with topic signatures. In: Proceedings of NAACL Workshop on WordNet and Other Lexical Resources: Applications, Extensions and Customizations. Pittsburgh, PA.
  • 3. R. Basili; Pazienza, M. T.; and Vindigni, M. (2000). Corpus-driven learning of event recognition rules. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Machine Learning and Information Extraction (ECAI-00).
  • 4. Corley, C. and Mihalcea, R. (2005). Measuring the Semantic Similarity of Texts. In: Proceedings of the ACL Workshop on Empirical Modelling of Semantic Equivalence and Entailment. Ann Arbor, MI.
  • 5. Oren Etzioni, Michael Cafarella, Doug Downey, Ana-Maria Popescu, Tal Shaked, Stephen Soderland, Daniel S. Weld, Alexander Yates, Unsupervised named-entity extraction from the web: an experimental study, Artificial Intelligence, v.165 n.1, p.91-134, June 2005 doi:10.1016/j.artint.2005.03.001
  • 6. Christiane Fellbaum 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press.
  • 7. W. Gale; Church, K.; and Yarowsky, D. (1992). A method for disambiguating word senses in a large corpus. Computers and Humanities, 26:415--439.
  • 8. Roxana Girju, Adriana Badulescu, Dan Moldovan, Learning semantic constraints for the automatic discovery of part-whole relations, Proceedings of the 2003 Conference of the North American Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics on Human Language Technology, p.1-8, May 27-June 01, 2003, Edmonton, Canada doi:10.3115/1073445.1073456
  • 9. Roxana Girju, Automatic detection of causal relations for Question Answering, Proceedings of the ACL 2003 workshop on Multilingual summarization and question answering, p.76-83, July 11, 2003 doi:10.3115/1119312.1119322
  • 10. S. Harabagiu; George A. Miller, and Dan Moldovan 1999. WordNet 2 - A Morphologically and Semantically Enhanced Resource. In: Proceedings of SIGLEX-99. pp.1--8. University of Maryland.
  • 11. Harris, Z. 1985. Distributional structure. In: Katz, J. J. (ed.) The Philosophy of Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 26--47.
  • 12. Donald Hindle, Noun classification from predicate-argument structures, Proceedings of the 28th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, p.268-275, June 06-09, 1990, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania doi:10.3115/981823.981857
  • 13. Dekang Lin, Patrick Pantel, Concept discovery from text, Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Computational linguistics, p.1-7, August 24-September 01, 2002, Taipei, Taiwan doi:10.3115/1072228.1072372
  • 14. Patrick Pantel, Inducing ontological co-occurrence vectors, Proceedings of the 43rd Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, p.125-132, June 25-30, 2005, Ann Arbor, Michigan doi:10.3115/1219840.1219856
  • 15. Deepak Ravichandran, Eduard Hovy, Learning surface text patterns for a Question Answering system, Proceedings of the 40th Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, July 07-12, 2002, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania doi:10.3115/1073083.1073092
  • 16. E. Riloff, and Shepherd, J. (1997). A corpus-based approach for building semantic lexicons. In: Proceedings of EMNLP-97.
  • 17. Siegel, S. and Castellan Jr., N. J. 1988. Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. McGraw-Hill.
  • 18. Szpektor, I.; Tanev, H.; Dagan, I.; and Coppola, B. (2004). Scaling web-based acquisition of entailment relations. In: Proceedings of EMNLP-04. Barcelona, Spain.
  • 19. Winston, M.; Chaffin, R.; and Hermann, D. 1987. A taxonomy of part-whole relations. Cognitive Science, 11:417--444.

,

 AuthorvolumeDate ValuetitletypejournaltitleUrldoinoteyear
2006 OntologizingSemanticRelationsPatrick Pantel
Marco Pennacchiotti
Ontologizing Semantic Relationshttp://www.patrickpantel.com/cgi-bin/Web/Tools/getfile.pl?type=paper&id=2006/acl06-02.pdf