Language Resources and Evaluation

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 313–326 | Cite as

Challenges for a multilingual wordnet

Original Paper

Abstract

Wordnets have been created in many languages, revealing both their lexical commonalities and diversity. The next challenge is to make multilingual wordnets fully interoperable. The EuroWordNet experience revealed the shortcomings of an interlingua based on a natural language. Instead, we propose a model based on the division of the lexicon and a language-independent, formal ontology that serves as the hub interlinking the language-specific lexicons. The ontology avoids the idiosyncracies of the lexicon and furthermore allows formal reasoning about the concepts it contains. We address the division of labor between ontology and lexicon. Finally, we illustrate our model in the context of a domain-specific multilingual information system based on a central ontology and interconnected wordnets in seven languages.

Keywords

Multilingual wordnets Formal ontology Information system 

References

  1. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (1998). WordNet: An electronic lexical database. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  2. Fellbaum, C. (Ed.). (2007). Collocations and idioms: Corpus-based linguistic and lexicographic studies. Birmingham, UK: Continuum Press.Google Scholar
  3. Fellbaum, C., & Miller, G. A. (2003). Morphosemantic links in WordNet. Traitement automatique de langue, 44(2), 69–80.Google Scholar
  4. Fellbaum, C., & Vossen, P. (2007). Connecting the universal to the specific. In T. Ishida, S. R. Fussell & P. T. J. M. Vossen (Eds.), Intercultural collaboration: First international workshop (Vol. 4568, pp. 1–16). Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer, New York.Google Scholar
  5. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., & Oltramari, A. (2003). Sweetening WordNet with DOLCE. AI Magazine, 24(3), 13–24.Google Scholar
  6. Gruber, T. R. (1993). A translation approach to portable ontologies. Knowledge Acquisition, 5, 199–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Guarino, N., & Welty, C. (2002a). Identity and subsumption. In R. Green, C. Bean, & S. Myaeng (Eds.), The semantics of relationships: An interdisciplinary perspective. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  8. Guarino, N., & Welty, C. (2002b). Evaluating ontological decisions with ontoclean. Communications of the ACM, 45(2), 61–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Levin, B. (1993). English verb classes and alternations: A Preliminary investigation. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, G. A. (Ed.). (1990). WordNet. Special Issue of the International Journal of Lexicography, 3(4).Google Scholar
  11. Miller, G. A. (1995). WordNet: A lexical database for English. Communications of the ACM, 38, 39–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Miller, G. A., & Hristea, F. (2006). WordNet nouns: Classes and instances. Computational Linguistics, 32(1), 1–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Moropa, K., Bosch, S., & Fellbaum, C. (2007). Introducing the African languages WordNet. In Proceedings of ALASA, Pretoria, South Africa. Google Scholar
  14. Niles, I., & Pease, A. (2001). Towards a standard upper ontology. In Proceedings of FOIS-2 (pp. 2–9). Maine: Ogunquit.Google Scholar
  15. Niles, I., & Pease, A. (2003). Linking lexicons and ontologies: Mapping WordNet to the suggested upper merged ontology. In Proceedings of the international conference on information and knowledge engineering (pp. 5–6).Google Scholar
  16. Pala, K., Bosch, S., & Fellbaum, C. (2008). Building resources for African languages. In Proceedings of the sixth international language resources and evaluation, Marrakech, Morocco.Google Scholar
  17. Pease, A., & Fellbaum, C. (2009). Formal ontology as interlingua. In C. R. Huang & L. Prevot (Eds.), Ontologies and lexical resources. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Robkop, K., Thoongsup, S., Charoenporn, T., Sornlertlamvanich, V., & Isahara, H. (2010). WNMS: Connceting the distributed Wordnet in the case of Asian WordNet. In The 5th international conference of the global WordNet association (GWC-2010), Mumbai, India.Google Scholar
  19. Ruppenhofer, J., Baker, C. F., & Fillmore, C. (2002). The FrameNet database and software tools. In A. Braasch & C. Povlsen (Eds.), Proceedings of the tenth Euralex international congress (pp. 371–375), Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
  20. Sinha, M., Reddy, M., & Bhattacharyya, P. (2006). An approach towards construction and application of multilingual Indo–WordNet. In Proceedings of the third global wordnet conference, Jeju Island, Korea. Google Scholar
  21. Tufis, D. (Ed.). (2004). The BalkaNet project. Special Issue of the Romanian Journal of Information Science and Technology, 7(15).Google Scholar
  22. Vossen, P. (Ed.). (1998). EuroWordNet. Dordrecht: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  23. Vossen, P., & Fellbaum, C. (2009). Universals and idiosyncrasies in multilingual wordnets. In H. Boas (Ed.), Multilingual lexical resources. Berlin: de Gruyter.Google Scholar
  24. Vossen, P., & Rigau, G. (2010). Division of semantic labor in the global wordnet grid. In P. Bhattacharya, C. Fellbaum & P. Vossen (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th global WordNet conference. Narosa Publishing House.Google Scholar
  25. Vossen, P., Peters, W., & Gonzalo, J. (1999). Towards a universal index of meaning. In Proceedings of ACL-99 workshop, siglex-99, standardizing lexical resources (pp. 81–90). University of Maryland, College Park, MD.Google Scholar
  26. Vossen, P., Agirre, E., Calzolari, N., Fellbaum, C., Hsieh, S.-K., Huang, C.-R., et al. (2008). KYOTO: A system for mining, structuring, and distributing knowledge across languages and cultures. In Proceedings of LREC, Marrakech, Morocco.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer SciencePrinceton UniversityPrincetonUSA
  2. 2.Faculty of ArtsVU University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations