File size: 41,152 Bytes
6fa4bc9 |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 |
{
"paper_id": "W11-0140",
"header": {
"generated_with": "S2ORC 1.0.0",
"date_generated": "2023-01-19T05:43:11.882926Z"
},
"title": "An Ontology Based Architecture for Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "Leonardo",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lesmo",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Torino",
"location": {}
},
"email": "[email protected]"
},
{
"first": "Alessandro",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mazzei",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Torino",
"location": {}
},
"email": "[email protected]"
},
{
"first": "Daniele",
"middle": [
"P"
],
"last": "Radicioni",
"suffix": "",
"affiliation": {
"laboratory": "",
"institution": "Universit\u00e0 degli Studi di Torino",
"location": {}
},
"email": "[email protected]"
}
],
"year": "",
"venue": null,
"identifiers": {},
"abstract": "In this paper we present some features of an architecture for the translation (Italian-Italian Sign Language) that performs syntactic analysis, semantic interpretation and generation. Such architecture relies on an ontology that has been used to encode the domain of weather forecasts as well as information on language as part of the world knowledge. We present some general issues of the ontological semantic interpretation and discuss the analysis of ordinal numbers.",
"pdf_parse": {
"paper_id": "W11-0140",
"_pdf_hash": "",
"abstract": [
{
"text": "In this paper we present some features of an architecture for the translation (Italian-Italian Sign Language) that performs syntactic analysis, semantic interpretation and generation. Such architecture relies on an ontology that has been used to encode the domain of weather forecasts as well as information on language as part of the world knowledge. We present some general issues of the ontological semantic interpretation and discuss the analysis of ordinal numbers.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Abstract",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"body_text": [
{
"text": "In this paper we describe some features of a system designed to translate from Italian into Italian Sign Language (henceforth LIS). The system is being developed within the ATLAS project. 1 This architecture applies a hard computational linguistic approach: knowledge-based restricted interlingua (Hutchins and Somer, 1992) . We perform a deep linguistic processing in each phase of the translation, i.e (1) syntactic analysis of the Italian input sentence, (2) semantic interpretation and (3) LIS generation. 2 The main motivation to adopt this ambitious architecture is that Italian and LIS are very different languages. Moreover, LIS is a poorly studied language, so no large corpus is available and statistical techniques are hardly conceivable. We reduce our ambitions by restricting ourselves to the weather forecasts application domain.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 297,
"end": 323,
"text": "(Hutchins and Somer, 1992)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF5"
},
{
"start": 510,
"end": 511,
"text": "2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "In this paper we describe some major issues of the semantic interpretation and illustrate a case study on ordinal numbers. Our semantic interpretation is based on a syntactic analysis that is a dependency tree (Hudson, 1984; Lesmo, 2007) . Each word in the sentence is associated with a node of the syntactic tree. Nodes are linked via labeled arcs that specify the syntactic role of the dependents with respect to their head (the parent node). A key point in semantic interpretation is that the syntax-semantics interface used in the analysis is based on an ontology. The knowledge in the ontology concerns an application domain, i.e. weather forecasts, as well as more general information about the world: the latter information is used to compute the sentence meaning. Indeed, the sentence meaning consists of a complex fragment of the ontology: predicate-argument structures and semantic roles are contained in this fragment and could be extracted by translating this fragment into usual First Order Logic predicates. 3 The idea to use the ontological paradigm to represent world knowledge as well as sentence meaning is similar to the work by Nirenburg and Raskin (2004) and Buitelaar et al. (2009) , but in contrast to these approaches (1) we use a syntactic parser to account for syntactic analysis; and (2) we use a recursive semantic interpretation function similar to Cimiano (2009) .",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 210,
"end": 224,
"text": "(Hudson, 1984;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF4"
},
{
"start": 225,
"end": 237,
"text": "Lesmo, 2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF6"
},
{
"start": 1022,
"end": 1023,
"text": "3",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 1148,
"end": 1175,
"text": "Nirenburg and Raskin (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 1180,
"end": 1203,
"text": "Buitelaar et al. (2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 1378,
"end": 1392,
"text": "Cimiano (2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Introduction",
"sec_num": "1"
},
{
"text": "The ontological knowledge base is a formal (partial) description of the domain of application. It is formal, since its primitives are formally defined, and it is partial, since it does not include all axioms that provide details about the relationships between the involved concepts. The top level of the domain ontology is illustrated in Fig. 1 . 4 The classes most relevant to weather forecasts are \u00a3\u00a3meteo-status-situation, \u00a3\u00a3geographic-area, \u00a3\u00a3description, \u00a3\u00a3geographic-part-selection-criterium. \u00a3\u00a3meteo-status-situation It is the most relevant class in the present setting, since it refers to the possible weather situations, thus providing a starting point -in principle-to every weather forecast. It may concern the sea status, a generic weather status (either stable or not) or possible atmospheric events such as snow, rain or clouds. \u00a3\u00a3geographic-area and \u00a3\u00a3time-interval Any weather situation holds in a specific place; in particular, the relevant places are geographic areas. A \u00a3\u00a3geographic-area can be an Italian region, a group of regions, a sea, or may be identified by specifying a cardinal direction (North, South, . . . ). Yet, any weather situation holds in a specific temporal interval. Such time interval could last one or more days or a part of a day. Expression as \"in the evening\" are interpreted anaphorically, i.e. on the basis of current context: if the context is referring to \"today\", then it is interpreted as \"today evening\", for \"tomorrow\" as \"tomorrow evening\", etc.. \u00a3\u00a3description The actual situation and its description are kept separated. For instance, if today is October 28, then \"today\" is a \u00a3\u00a3deictic-description of a particular instance (or occurrence) of a \u00a3\u00a3day. \"April 28, 2010\" is another description (absolute) of the same instance. Particular relevance have the deictic descriptions since most temporal descriptions (today, tomorrow, but also the weekday names, as Monday, Tuesday, . . . ) are deictic in nature. \u00a3\u00a3geogr-part-selection-criterium In descriptions, a particular instance (or group of instances) can be identified by a general class term (e.g. area) and a descriptor (e.g. northern). This concept refers to the parts of the reality that can act as descriptors. For instance, the cardinal direction can be such a criterium for geographic parts, while a date is not.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 348,
"end": 349,
"text": "4",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 339,
"end": 345,
"text": "Fig. 1",
"ref_id": "FIGREF0"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Ontology",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "The last relevant portion of the ontology concerns relations. Although the ontology has no axioms, class concepts are connected through relevant relations. In turn, relations constitute the basic steps to form paths (more later on). All relations in the ontology are binary, so that the representation of relations of arity greater than 2 requires that they be reified.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "The Ontology",
"sec_num": "2"
},
{
"text": "One chief assumption in our work is that words meaning can be expressed in terms of ontology nodes, and the meaning of the sentence is a complex path on the ontology that we call ontological restriction. We define the meaning interpretation function M O , that computes the the ontological restriction of a sentence starting from the its dependency analysis and on the basis of an ontology O.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Interpretation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "Given a sentence S and the corresponding syntactic analysis expressed as a dependency tree depT ree(S), the meaning of S is computed by applying the meaning interpretation function to the root of the tree, that is M O (root(depT ree(S))). In procedural terms, the meaning for a sentence is computed in two steps: (i) we annotate each word of the input sentence with the corresponding lexical meaning; (ii) we build the giorno [\u00a3\u00a3day] ultimo [\u00a3\u00a3last] mese [\u00a3\u00a3month] adjc+ordin-rmod rmod Figure 2 : The dependency analysis of ultimo giorno del mese (last day of the month) enriched with lexical meaning.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 426,
"end": 433,
"text": "[\u00a3\u00a3day]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 441,
"end": 449,
"text": "[\u00a3\u00a3last]",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 455,
"end": 464,
"text": "[\u00a3\u00a3month]",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 486,
"end": 494,
"text": "Figure 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Interpretation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "actual ontological representation in a quasi-compositional way, by merging paths found in the ontology in a single representation which is a subgraph of the ontology itself. These two steps can be formalized as a meaning interpretation function M defined as:",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Interpretation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "M O (n) := LM O (n) if n is a lea\u1e1f \u222a k i=1 (CP O (LM O (n), M O (d i ))) otherwise",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Interpretation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "where n is the node of a dependency tree and",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Interpretation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "d 1 ,d 2 , . . . , d k are its dependents. LM O (w)",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Interpretation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "is a function that extracts the lexical meaning of a word w accessing the dictionary: that is, a class or an individual on the ontology O. CP O (y, z) is a function that returns the shortest path on O that connects y to z. The search for connections relies on the rationale that the shortest path between any two ontology nodes represents the stronger semantic connection between them. In most cases the distance between two concepts is the number of the nodes among them, but in some cases a number of constraints needs to be satisfied too (see the example on ordinal construction). Finally, the operator\u222a is used to denote a particular merge operator, similar to Cimiano (2009) . As a general strategy, shortest paths are composed with the union operation, but each CP O (y, z) conveys a peculiar set of ontological constraints: the merge operator takes all such constraints to build the overall complex ontological representation. In particular, a number of semantic clashes can arise from the union operation: we use a number of heuristics to resolve these clashes. For sake of simplicity (and space) in this definition we do not describe the heuristics used in the ambiguity resolution. However, three distinct types of ambiguity exist: (1) lexical ambiguity, i.e. a word can have more than one lexical meaning; (2) shortest path ambiguity, i.e. two nodes can be connected by two equal-length paths; (3) merge ambiguity, i.e. two fragments of ontology can be merged in different manners. Whilst lexical ambiguity has not a great impact due to the limited domain (and could be addressed by standard word sense disambiguation techniques), handling shortest path and merge ambiguities needs heuristics expressed as constraints that rely on general world knowledge.",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 665,
"end": 679,
"text": "Cimiano (2009)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF2"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Interpretation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "A particular case of ontological constraints in merge ambiguity is present in the interpretation of ordinal numbers, so further details on the merge operator can be found in Section 4.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Semantic Interpretation",
"sec_num": "3"
},
{
"text": "In order to translate from Italian into LIS, we need to cope with a number of semantic phenomena appearing in the particular domain chosen as pilot study, i.e. weather forecast. One of the most frequent constructions are ordinal numbers. Consider the simple phrase l'ultimo giorno del mese (the last day of the month). The (simplified) dependency structure corresponding to this phrase is depicted in Fig. 2 : the head word giorno (day) has two modifying dependents, ultimo (last) and mese (month). Since the interpretation relies heavily on the access to the ontology, we first describe the portion of the ontology used for the interpretation and then we illustrate the application of the function M to the given example.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 401,
"end": 407,
"text": "Fig. 2",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A case study: the ordinal numbers",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "The relevant fragment of the ontology is organized as shown in Fig. 3 , that has been split in two parts. The upper part -labeled TEMPORAL PARTS-describes the reified \u00a3\u00a3part-of relation and its temporally specialized subclasses. The lower part -labeled ORDINALS-is constituted by some classes that account just for ordinal numbers. In the TEMPORAL PARTS region of the Fig. we find the \u00a3\u00a3temporal-part-of (reified) sub-relation, which, in turn, subsumes \u00a3\u00a3day-month-part-of . This specifies that days are parts of months, so that day of the month can be interpreted as the day which is part of the month. The \u00a3\u00a3part-of relation has two roles: we use the term role to refer to the binary relation associated with a participant in a reified relation. These roles are \"value-restricted\" as &day-in-daymonth and &month-in-daymonth respectively, for what concerns \u00a3\u00a3day-month-part-of . The most relevant class in the ORDINALS part of Fig. 3 is the class \u00a3\u00a3ordinal-description. It is the domain of three roles, 1) &ord-described-item, 2) &references-sequence and 3) &ordinal-desc-selector. The range of the first relation &ord-described-item is the item whose position in the sequence is specified by the ordinal, that is a \u00a3\u00a3sequenceable-entity. The range of the second relation &reference-sequence is the sequence inside which the position makes sense, that is an \u00a3\u00a3entity-sequence. The range of the third relation &ordinal-desc-selector is item that specifies the position, that is a \u00a3\u00a3ordinal-selector. In the example, \u00a3last is an instance of \u00a3\u00a3ordinalselector. Of course, any (true) ordinal (first, second, thirtythird) can fill that role. The two portions of the ontology are connected by two arcs. The first arc specifies that a \u00a3\u00a3time-interval is a subclass of \u00a3\u00a3sequenceable-entity (so that one can say the fourth minute, the first year, and so on). The second arc specifies that \u00a3\u00a3month is subclass of \u00a3\u00a3day-sequence, which in turn is subclass of \u00a3\u00a3entity-sequence. As a consequence it can play the role (can be the range) of the &reference-sequence. We now describe how the meaning interpretation function is applied on the considered example. It consists of three steps: 1. we compute the connection path between the concepts \u00a3\u00a3day and \u00a3last; 2. we compute the connection path between \u00a3\u00a3day and \u00a3\u00a3month ; 3. we merge the connection paths previously computed. In details: 1. By computing CP(\u00a3\u00a3day, \u00a3last) we obtain the connection path in Fig 4- a. Note that this ontological restriction contains the concept \u00a3\u00a3ordinal-selector. 2. By computing CP(\u00a3\u00a3day, \u00a3\u00a3month) we obtain the connection path in Fig 4-b . In this case the shortest path is not actually the \"shortest\" one, i.e. the presence of the preposition del (of ) constraints the value returned by CP. Moreover, this ontological restriction contains the concept \u00a3\u00a3day-month-part-of , which is a sub-concept of \u00a3\u00a3part-of . 3. The last step consists of the application of the meaning composition function to CP(\u00a3\u00a3day, \u00a3last) and CP(\u00a3\u00a3day, \u00a3\u00a3month). The \u00a3\u00a3ordinal-description concept is detected in the first ontological restriction; moreover \u00a3\u00a3day is recognized as (subclass of) a possible filler for \u00a3\u00a3ordinal-description. At this point we need establishing how \u00a3\u00a3day fits as the smaller part of a &part-of relation. We scan the remaining ontological restriction(s) looking for a bigger part involved in a &part-of relation or in any of its sub-relations. The resulting representation (Fig. 4-c) is built by assuming that the larger entity (here \u00a3\u00a3month , since &month-in-daymonth restricts &part-bigger) is the reference sequence for the ordering. So, the direct \u00a3\u00a3day-month-part-of of the second ontological restriction is replaced by a path passing through \u00a3\u00a3ordinal-description. In such final ontological restriction \u00a3\u00a3day is the &ord-described-item and \u00a3\u00a3month is the &reference-sequence.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [
{
"start": 63,
"end": 69,
"text": "Fig. 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 368,
"end": 375,
"text": "Fig. we",
"ref_id": null
},
{
"start": 928,
"end": 934,
"text": "Fig. 3",
"ref_id": "FIGREF1"
},
{
"start": 2442,
"end": 2448,
"text": "Fig 4-",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
},
{
"start": 2600,
"end": 2607,
"text": "Fig 4-b",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
},
{
"start": 3444,
"end": 3454,
"text": "(Fig. 4-c)",
"ref_id": "FIGREF2"
}
],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "A case study: the ordinal numbers",
"sec_num": "4"
},
{
"text": "In this paper we illustrated the analysis component of a knowledge-based restricted interlingua architecture for the translation from Italian into LIS. The structure produced by the semantic interpretation of the source sentence is a complex ontology fragment obtained by the application of the function M O . As case study we showed how this function uses the ontology O to interpret the ordinal numbers. The decision to use an ontology fragment as semantic representation is motivated by theoretical assumptions and has some practical appeals. From a theoretical point of view, we represent language semantics as part of the world knowledge in ontologies (Buitelaar et al., 2009; Galanis and Androutsopoulos, 2007; Nirenburg and Raskin, 2004) . From an applicative point of view the ontology restriction produced by the semantic interpretation is used (in logical form) as input of the OpenCCG tool, in the generation component of the translation architecture (White, 2006) . As a consequence, similar to Nirenburg and Raskin (2004) , we use ontologies in all components of our architecture (cf. Galanis and Androutsopoulos (2007) ; Sun and Mellish (2007) ).",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 657,
"end": 681,
"text": "(Buitelaar et al., 2009;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF0"
},
{
"start": 682,
"end": 716,
"text": "Galanis and Androutsopoulos, 2007;",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 717,
"end": 744,
"text": "Nirenburg and Raskin, 2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 962,
"end": 975,
"text": "(White, 2006)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF9"
},
{
"start": 1007,
"end": 1034,
"text": "Nirenburg and Raskin (2004)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF7"
},
{
"start": 1098,
"end": 1132,
"text": "Galanis and Androutsopoulos (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF3"
},
{
"start": 1135,
"end": 1157,
"text": "Sun and Mellish (2007)",
"ref_id": "BIBREF8"
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and future work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "We have currently implemented the main features of the M O and the ontology is being developed. Our working hypothesis is that the weather forecast sub-language is characterized by plain and short sentences and this guarantees scalability of our approach. In the next future we plan to broaden the coverage of linguistic phenomena, so to unify ordinals, superlative and comparative adjective analyses. 5 ",
"cite_spans": [
{
"start": 402,
"end": 403,
"text": "5",
"ref_id": null
}
],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "Conclusions and future work",
"sec_num": "5"
},
{
"text": "http://www.atlas.polito.it/ 2 LIS, as all the signed languages do not have a natural writing form. In order to apply linguistic tools designed for written languages, in our project we developed \"AEW-LIS\", an artificial written form for LIS.3 However, similar to other approach (among othersBunt et al. (2007);White (2006)), our ontological meaning representation is totally unscoped.4 Some conventions have been adopted for ontology names: concepts (classes) have a \u00a3\u00a3prefix; instances have a \u00a3prefix; and relations and relation instances have a & prefix.",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
},
{
"text": "Acknowledgement: This work is partly supported from the ATLAS project, that is co-funded by Regione Piemonte within the \"Converging Technologies -CIPE 2007\" framework (Research Sector: Cognitive Science and ICT).",
"cite_spans": [],
"ref_spans": [],
"eq_spans": [],
"section": "",
"sec_num": null
}
],
"back_matter": [],
"bib_entries": {
"BIBREF0": {
"ref_id": "b0",
"title": "Towards linguistically grounded ontologies",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Buitelaar",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cimiano",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Haase",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sintek",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 6th Annual European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Buitelaar, P., P. Cimiano, P. Haase, and M. Sintek (2009). Towards linguistically grounded ontologies. In Proceed- ings of the 6th Annual European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF1": {
"ref_id": "b1",
"title": "Customizing Meaning: Building Domain-Specific Semantic Representations From A Generic Lexicon",
"authors": [
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [],
"last": "Bunt",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [
"M M"
],
"last": "Dzikovska",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "Swift",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "J",
"middle": [],
"last": "Allen",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "",
"volume": "83",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Bunt, H., R. M. M. Dzikovska, M. Swift, and J. Allen (2007). Customizing Meaning: Building Domain-Specific Semantic Representations From A Generic Lexicon, Volume 83. Springer.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF2": {
"ref_id": "b2",
"title": "Flexible semantic composition with DUDES",
"authors": [
{
"first": "P",
"middle": [],
"last": "Cimiano",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2009,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computational Semantics (IWCS'09)",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Cimiano, P. (2009). Flexible semantic composition with DUDES. In Proceedings of the 8th International Confer- ence on Computational Semantics (IWCS'09).",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF3": {
"ref_id": "b3",
"title": "Generating multilingual descriptions from linguistically annotated OWL ontologies: the naturalOWL system",
"authors": [
{
"first": "D",
"middle": [],
"last": "Galanis",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "I",
"middle": [],
"last": "Androutsopoulos",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of the 11th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Schloss Dagstuhl",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Galanis, D. and I. Androutsopoulos (2007). Generating multilingual descriptions from linguistically annotated OWL ontologies: the naturalOWL system. In In Proceedings of the 11th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, Schloss Dagstuhl.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF4": {
"ref_id": "b4",
"title": "Word Grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "R",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hudson",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1984,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hudson, R. (1984). Word Grammar. Oxford and New York: Basil Blackwell.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF5": {
"ref_id": "b5",
"title": "An Introduction to Machine Translation",
"authors": [
{
"first": "W",
"middle": [],
"last": "Hutchins",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "H",
"middle": [
"L"
],
"last": "Somer",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 1992,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Hutchins, W. and H. L. Somer (1992). An Introduction to Machine Translation. London: Academic Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF6": {
"ref_id": "b6",
"title": "The Rule-Based Parser of the NLP Group of the University of Torino",
"authors": [
{
"first": "L",
"middle": [],
"last": "Lesmo",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Intelligenza Artificiale",
"volume": "2",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "46--47",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Lesmo, L. (2007, June). The Rule-Based Parser of the NLP Group of the University of Torino. Intelligenza Artificiale 2(4), 46-47.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF7": {
"ref_id": "b7",
"title": "Ontological Semantics",
"authors": [
{
"first": "S",
"middle": [],
"last": "Nirenburg",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "V",
"middle": [],
"last": "Raskin",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2004,
"venue": "",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Nirenburg, S. and V. Raskin (2004). Ontological Semantics. The MIT Press.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF8": {
"ref_id": "b8",
"title": "An experiment on \"free generation\" from single RDF triples",
"authors": [
{
"first": "X",
"middle": [],
"last": "Sun",
"suffix": ""
},
{
"first": "C",
"middle": [],
"last": "Mellish",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2007,
"venue": "Proceedings of ENLG '07",
"volume": "",
"issue": "",
"pages": "105--108",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "Sun, X. and C. Mellish (2007). An experiment on \"free generation\" from single RDF triples. In Proceedings of ENLG '07, pp. 105-108. Association for Computational Linguistics.",
"links": null
},
"BIBREF9": {
"ref_id": "b9",
"title": "Efficient realization of coordinate structures in combinatory categorial grammar",
"authors": [
{
"first": "M",
"middle": [],
"last": "White",
"suffix": ""
}
],
"year": 2006,
"venue": "Research on Language and Computation",
"volume": "",
"issue": "4",
"pages": "39--75",
"other_ids": {},
"num": null,
"urls": [],
"raw_text": "White, M. (2006). Efficient realization of coordinate structures in combinatory categorial grammar. Research on Language and Computation 2006(4(1)), 39-75.",
"links": null
}
},
"ref_entries": {
"FIGREF0": {
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "The top ontology used for the weather forecast domain. Dashed triangles represent collapsed regions of the hierarchy.",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF1": {
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "The fragment of the ontology accounting for ordinals.",
"type_str": "figure"
},
"FIGREF2": {
"num": null,
"uris": null,
"text": "The ontology fragment computed by the semantic interpretation function.",
"type_str": "figure"
}
}
}
} |