Language Resources and Evaluation

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 701–719

Interchanging lexical resources on the Semantic Web

  • John McCrae
  • Guadalupe Aguado-de-Cea
  • Paul Buitelaar
  • Philipp Cimiano
  • Thierry Declerck
  • Asunción Gómez-Pérez
  • Jorge Gracia
  • Laura Hollink
  • Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
  • Dennis Spohr
  • Tobias Wunner
Original Paper

Abstract

Lexica and terminology databases play a vital role in many NLP applications, but currently most such resources are published in application-specific formats, or with custom access interfaces, leading to the problem that much of this data is in “data silos” and hence difficult to access. The Semantic Web and in particular the Linked Data initiative provide effective solutions to this problem, as well as possibilities for data reuse by inter-lexicon linking, and incorporation of data categories by dereferencable URIs. The Semantic Web focuses on the use of ontologies to describe semantics on the Web, but currently there is no standard for providing complex lexical information for such ontologies and for describing the relationship between the lexicon and the ontology. We present our model, lemon, which aims to address these gaps while building on existing work, in particular the Lexical Markup Framework, the ISOcat Data Category Registry, SKOS (Simple Knowledge Organization System) and the LexInfo and LIR ontology-lexicon models.

Keywords

Lexica Terminology Semantic Web Linked data Ontologies 

References

  1. Ashburner, M., Ball, C., Blake, J., Botstein, D., Butler, H., Cherry, J., et al. (2000). Gene ontology: Tool for the unification of biology. The Gene Ontology Consortium. Nature Genetics, 25(1), 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Auer, S., Bizer, C., Kobilarov, G., Lehmann, J., Cyganiak, R., & Ives, Z. (2007). Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data. In: Proceedings of the 6th international Semantic Web conference (ISWC) (pp. 722–735).Google Scholar
  3. Baker, C., Fillmore, C., & Lowe, J. (1998). The Berkeley FrameNet project. In: Proceedings of the 36th annual meeting of the association for computational linguistics (ACL) (pp. 86–90).Google Scholar
  4. Beckett, D., & Berners-Lee, T. (2008). Turtle–Terse RDF triple language. http://www.w3.org/TeamSubmission/turtle/. Accessed October 19, 2010.
  5. Bizer, C., Heath, T., & Berners-Lee, T. (2009). Linked data—the story so far. International Journal on Semantic Web and Information Systems, 5, 1–22.Google Scholar
  6. Buitelaar, P. (2010). Ontology-based Semantic Lexicons: Mapping between terms and object descriptions. In: C.R. Huang, N. Calzolari, A. Gangemi, A. Lenci, A. Oltramari & L. Prevot (Eds.), Ontology and the Lexicon (pp. 212–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Haase, P., & Sintek, M. (2009). Towards linguistically grounded ontologies. In: Proceedings of the European Semantic Web conference (ESWC) (pp. 111–125).Google Scholar
  8. Chiarcos, C. (2010). Grounding an ontology of linguistic annotations in the data category registry. In: Proceedings of the international conference on language resource and evaluation (LREC) (pp. 37–40).Google Scholar
  9. Cimiano, P., Buitelaar, P., McCrae, J., & Sintek, M. (2011). LexInfo: A declarative model for the lexicon-ontology interface. Journal of Web Semantics, 9(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Farrar, S., & Langendoen, D. (2003). Markup and the GOLD ontology. In: Proceedings of workshop on digitizing and annotating text and field recordings (pp. 845–862).Google Scholar
  11. Fellbaum, C. (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT press.Google Scholar
  12. Francopoulo, G., George, M., Calzolari, N., Monachini, M., Bel, N., Pet, M., et al. (2006). Lexical markup framework (LMF). In: Proceedings of the international conference on language resource and evaluation (LREC) (pp. 233–236).Google Scholar
  13. Grishman, R., Macleod, C., & Meyers, A. (1994). COMLEX syntax: Building a computational lexicon. In: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on computational linguistics (COLING) (pp. 268–272).Google Scholar
  14. Isaac, A., Phipps, J., & Rubin, D. (2009). SKOS use cases and requirements. http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/NOTE-skos-ucr-20090818/, Accessed 19 October 2010.
  15. Kemps-Snijders, M., Windhouwer, M., Wittenburg, P., & Wright, S. (2008). ISOcat: Corralling data categories in the wild. In: Proceedings of the international conference on language resource and evaluation (LREC) (pp. 887–891).Google Scholar
  16. Kifer, M. (2008). Rule interchange format: The framework. In: Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on web reasoning and rule systems (pp. 1–11).Google Scholar
  17. Kilgarriff, A. (1997). I don’t believe in word senses. Computers and the Humanities, 31(2), 91–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kim, J., Ohta, T., Tateisi, Y., & Tsujii, J. (2003). GENIA corpus—a semantically annotated corpus for bio-textmining. Bioinformatics, 19(1), 180–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. McCrae, J., Spohr, D., & Cimiano, P. (2011). Linking lexical resources and ontologies on the semantic web with lemon. In: Proceedings of the 8th extended Semantic Web conference (ESWC-11) (pp. 245–259).Google Scholar
  20. Miles, A., & Bechhofer, S. (2009). SKOS simple knowledge organization system reference. http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/. Accessed October 19, 2010.
  21. Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Aguado de Cea, G., Gómez Pérez, A., & Peters, W. (2010). Enriching ontologies with multilingual information. In B. Boguraev, J. Tait, & M. Palmer (Eds.), Natural language engineering (pp 1–27). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Reymonet, A., Thomas, J., & Aussenac-Gilles, N. (2007). Modelling ontological and terminological resources in OWL-DL. In: Proceedings of the 6th international Semantic Web conference (ISWC) (pp. 415–425).Google Scholar
  23. Romary, L. (2010). Standardization of the formal representation of lexical information for NLP. In: Dictionaries: An international encyclopedia of lexicography. Mouton de Gruyter. http://arxiv.org/abs/0911.5116v1.
  24. Shadbolt, N., Hall, W., & Berners-Lee, T. (2006). The semantic web revisited. IEEE Intelligent Systems, 21(3), 96–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Scheffczyk, J., Pease, A., & Ellsworth, M. (2006). Linking FrameNet to the suggested upper merged ontology. In: Formal ontology in information systems (FOIS-2006) (pp. 289–300).Google Scholar
  26. Van Assem, M., Gangemi, A., & Schreiber, G. (2006). Conversion of WordNet to a standard RDF/OWL representation. In: Proceedings of the fifth international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC) (pp. 237–242).Google Scholar
  27. Vossen, P. (1998). EuroWordNet: A multilingual database with lexical semantic networks. Computational Linguistics, 25(4), 628–630.Google Scholar
  28. Vossen, P., Bloksma, L., Peters, W., Kunze, C., Wagner, A., Pala, K., et al. (1999). Extending the Inter-Lingual-Index with new concepts. Deliverable 2D010, EuroWordNet, LE2-4003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • John McCrae
    • 1
  • Guadalupe Aguado-de-Cea
    • 2
  • Paul Buitelaar
    • 3
  • Philipp Cimiano
    • 1
  • Thierry Declerck
    • 4
  • Asunción Gómez-Pérez
    • 2
  • Jorge Gracia
    • 2
  • Laura Hollink
    • 5
  • Elena Montiel-Ponsoda
    • 2
  • Dennis Spohr
    • 1
  • Tobias Wunner
    • 3
  1. 1.CITECUniversity of BielefeldBielefeldGermany
  2. 2.Universidad Politécnica de MadridBoadilla del MonteSpain
  3. 3.DERINational University of Ireland, GalwayGalwayIreland
  4. 4.DFKISaarbrückenGermany
  5. 5.Technical University of DelftDelftNetherlands

Personalised recommendations