Ontology and the Lexiocn.week4

..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .

Lexical Resources Lexicalized Ontologies. . . .. . . . . .

Lab

Ontology and the LexiconWeek 4: Ontological and Lexical Resources

Shu-Kai Hsieh

Lab of Ontologies, Language Processing and e-HumanitiesGIL, National Taiwan University

March 18, 2014

Ontology and the Lexicon Shu-Kai Hsieh

..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

..1 Lexical ResourcesWordNetFrameNet

..2 Lexicalized Ontologies

..3 LabWiki TaxonomyChinese Wordnet


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Barsalou[1]

• We shall assume that concepts are people’s psychologicalrepresentations of categories (e.g., apple, chair); whereasmeanings are people’s understandings of words and otherlinguistic expressions (e.g., ”apple”, ”large chair”).

• We shall argue that concepts and meanings differsubstantially. Although they are related in important ways,the relationship is one of complementarity, not equivalence.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

WordNet

WordNet

• A freely available lexical Database developed by PrincetonUniversity.

• A semantic network which consists of synsets and relations.• 155,287 word forms are grouped into 117,659 synsets

(WordNet 3.0)• synsets are glossed, and interconnected with different semantic

relations.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet





..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet

Frames: chunks of knowledge

..1 The notion of frame came up in the 1970s in AI and CognitiveScience. Similar notions include schema, script and scenario.

..2 Words are defined through the semantic roles they play andthe frames (types of event, relation, or entity) they evoke.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet

source:

http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/news/2014/02/charles-fillmore-dies-at-84


http://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/news/2014/02/charles-fillmore-dies-at-84

..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet

FrameNet

• Word evokes the frame.• Instead of words, FN works with lexical units (LUs), each of

these being a pairing of a word with a sense.

Example (of FN work)

Let’s work through the Revenge frame following Fillmore (pp26-):(https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/sites/default/files/FNintroCJF.ppt); Theglossary also helps (https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/glossary)


https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/sites/default/files/FNintroCJF.ppt

https://framenet.icsi.berkeley.edu/fndrupal/glossary

..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet

FrameNet Relations

The frames that we create, and thus the Frame Elements (FE) andLexical Units (LU) associated with them, are intended to besituated in semantic space by means of frame-to-frame relationsand semantic types. The relations we use include Inheritance,Subframe, Causative of, Inchoative of, and Using.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet

FrameNet Relationssource: FrameNet (II) book

Inheritance An IS-A relation. The child frame is a subtype of theparent frame, and each FE in the parent is bound toa corresponding FE in the child. An example is theRevenge frame which inherits from the Rewards andpunishments frame.

Subframe The child frame is a subevent of a complex eventrepresented by the parent, e.g. the Criminalprocess frame has subframes of Arrest,Arraignment, Trial, and Sentencing.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet

FrameNet Relationssource: FrameNet (II) book

Using The child frame presupposes the parent frame asbackground, e.g the Speed frame ”uses” (orpresupposes) the Motion frame; however, not allparent FEs need to be bound to child FEs.

Perspective on The child frame provides a particular perspectiveon an un-perspectivized parent frame. A pair ofexamples consists of the Hiring and Get_a_jobframes, which perspectivize the Employment_startframe from the Employer’s and the Employee’s pointof view, respectively.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet

FrameNet Ontology


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet

Lexical Resources: Comparison and Alignment

• FN: 800 frames, 10,000 LUs, examplified in more than135,000 sentences.

• WN: 117659 synsets, 206941 word-sense pairs, ....


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet


• WN: a syset comprises only synonyms of the same part ofspeech; FN: a frame may include different parts of speech,and words with contradictory definitions (such as antonymsrelated to the same idea).

• Statistical measure that shows where WordNet and FrameNetagree well on the meanings of words and phrases, and wherethey do not [2].


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

FrameNet


Out of the 67 annotated sentences that included the word curious,48 both evoked the typicality frame (FN1) and used curious in theWordNet sense of ”beyond or deviating from the usual orexpected” (WN1).


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab





..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Classification of Ontologies

• Formal vs informal ontologies• Lexicalized vs non-lexicalized ontologies


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

WN as a lexicalized ontology

• All of the WordNet noun synsets are organized intohierarchies, with 25 top-level synsets headed by the uniquebeginner synset entity.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

• E.g., Hypernymy/Hyponymy and Meronymy/Holonymy aretransitive and asymmetrical. So as Hyponymy generates ahierarchical semantic structure, a hyponym inherits all thefeatures of the more generic concept and adds at least onefeature that distinguishes it from its superordinate. Thehierarchy is about 16 levels.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Multilingual Wordnets• (EuroWordnet) The development of a multilingual database

with WordNets for several European languages, with 10,000up to 50,000 synsets. (Dutch, German, French, Spanish,Italian, Czech, Estonian).

• Inter-Lingual-Index, which are mainly based on EWNsynsets, serves as unstructured fund of concepts that providean efficient mapping across the languages;

• Various types of equivalence relations are distinguished tolink synsets with index records.

• Some cross-linguistic issues identified: different lexicalization,differencs in synonymy and homonymy, etc.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Multilingual Wordnets

• (BalkaNet) (Romanian, Bulgarian, Turkish, Slovenian, Greek,Serbian), with 10,000 synsets.

• (AsianWordnet) (Hindi, Indonesian, Lao, Mongolian,Japanese, Burmese, Nepali, Sinhala, Thai, Vietnamese) 1

• (The Global WordNet Association, more than 50 languages) 2

1http://www.asianwordnet.org2http://www.globalwordnet.org


http://www.asianwordnet.org

http://www.globalwordnet.org

..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Figure : Multilingual WordNet Architecture: EWN’s modelOntology and the Lexicon Shu-Kai Hsieh

..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

The ideal Global Wordnet Model (Vossen)?• Construct separate wordnets for each language.• Contributors from each language encode the same core set of

concepts plus culture/language-specific ones.• Synsets (concepts) are mapped cross linguistically via an

ontology, instead of just the English Wordnet.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

NLTK rocks


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Wiki Taxonomy





..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Wiki Taxonomy

Wiki: its role

• A good review of current state-of-arts can be found in [3].• Resolving the Knowledge acquisition bottleneck: The

creation of very large knowledge bases has been made possibleby the availability of collaboratively-curated online resourcessuch as Wikipedia and Wiktionary.

• structured, semi-structured, unstructured resources.• what are the advantages and disadvantages, respectively?


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Wiki Taxonomy

Wiki as semi-structured content for Ontologies

• Transforming Wikipedia into machine-readable knowledge• Acquiring related terms: thesaurus extraction• Relation extraction

• Leitmotif: generating semantics by exploiting the shallowstructure found in Wikipedia.

• Building and enriching ontologies from Wikipedia: YAGO,WikiNet and BabelNet.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Wiki Taxonomy

Multilingual case of collaboratively-generatedsemi-structured resources


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Wiki Taxonomy

• WikiTaxonomy (Ponzetto and Strube, 2007; Ponzetto andStrube, 2011)(100k is-a relations)

• WikiNet: (Nas- tase et al., 2010; Nastase and Strube, 2013)is a project which heuristically exploits different aspects ofWikipedia to obtain a multilingual concept network by derivingnot only is-a relations, but also other types of relations.

• MENTA (de Melo and Weikum, 2010), creates one of thelargest multilingual lexical knowledge bases by interconnectingmore than 13M articles in 271 languages.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Chinese Wordnet

Chinese Wordnet(s)

Existing CWNs:• Sinica BOW (Huang et al, 2004)• CWN.1 (Academia Sinica, 2004-2010) »> CWN.2

(NTU-Taiwan 2011-)• COW (NTU-Singapore)• Southeast University WordNet (SEW), 2008


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Chinese Wordnet

Chinese Wordnet(s)

Evaluation matters!Example

• quantity w/o quality• linguistic depth (co-predication, variants, etc)• coarse or fine-grained evalution methodology (e.g., via

annotators agreement or OntoClean methodology) (Hsieh,2013)


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Chinese Wordnet

Chinese Wordnet.2

Launched and develped by AS (Chu-Ren Huang) and maintainedby LOPE lab (Shu-Kai Hsieh) at NTU.

• Successor of bilingual translation wordnet (Sinica BOW)developed by Academia Sinica.3.

• condense in synsets, sparse in LSR.• with some specific designs (e.g., meaning facets, paranymy,

etc).• other variants 4

3bow.sinica.edu.tw4googleCWN: lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/gcwn


bow.sinica.edu.tw

lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/gcwn

..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Chinese Wordnet

Chinese Wordnet 2

Figure : Chinese Wordnet: lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn2


lope.linguistics.ntu.edu.tw/cwn2

..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Chinese Wordnet

A wikified collaboration platform


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Chinese Wordnet

Homework

• 找一個角度，比較WN 與FN 的異同�• (修過python的同學，請多利用nltk來數量上的說明與論

據)


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Chinese Wordnet

Lawrence W Barsalou, Wenchi Yeh, Barbara J Luka, Karen LOlseth, Kelly S Mix, and Ling-Ling Wu.Concepts and meaning.1993.Gerard De Melo, Collin F Baker, Nancy Ide, Rebecca JPassonneau, and Christiane Fellbaum.Empirical comparisons of masc word sense annotations.In LREC, pages 3036–3043, 2012.Eduard Hovy, Roberto Navigli, and Simone Paolo Ponzetto.Collaboratively built semi-structured content and artificialintelligence: The story so far.Artificial Intelligence, 194:2–27, 2013.Sebastian Löbner.


..........

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

.....

.....

......

.....

......

.....

.....

.

.

. . . . . . . . . . .


Lab

Chinese Wordnet

Understanding semantics.Routledge, 2013.


Ontology and the Lexiocn.week4

Technology

Transcript of Ontology and the Lexiocn.week4