Computers and the Humanities

, Volume 33, Issue 1–2, pp 59–84 | Cite as

Using the Right Tools: Enhancing Retrieval from Marked-up Documents

  • Christopher Welty
  • Nacy Ide


We are experimenting with the representation of a DTD and associated documents (i.e., documents conformant to the DTD) in a knowledge representation (KR) system, in order to provide more sophisticated query and retrieval from TEI documents than current systems provide. We are using CLASSIC, a frame-based representation system developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories. Like many KR systems, CLASSIC enables the definition of structured concepts/frames, their organization into taxonomies, the creation and manipulation of individual instances of such concepts, and inference such as inheritance, relation transitivity, inverses, etc. In addition, CLASSIC provides for the key inferences of subsumption and classification. By representing a document as an individual instance of a hierarchy of concepts derived from the DTD, and by allowing the creation of additional user-defined concepts and relations, sophisticated query and retrieval operations can be performed. This paper describes CLASSIC and the formalism of description logic that underlies it, and demonstrates how it can be used for enhanced retrieval from richly encoded documents.


Representation System Current System Knowledge Representation Computational Linguistic Description Logic 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Artale, A., E. Franconi, N. Guarino and L. Pazzi. “Part-Whole Relations in Object-Centered Systems: An Overview”. Data and Knowledge Engineering Journal, 20 (1996), 347–383. Elsevier.Google Scholar
  2. Blake, G.E., M. Consens, I.J. Davis, P. Kilpelainen, E. Kuikka, P-A. Larson, T. Snider and F.W. Tompa. Text/Relational Database Management Systems: Overview and Proposed SQL Extensions. Available at, 1997.Google Scholar
  3. Borgida, A. “On the Relative Expressiveness of Description Logics and Predicate Logics”. To appear, Artificial Intelligence Journal. Available at, 1998.Google Scholar
  4. Brachman, R. “What Is-a Is and Isn't”. IEEE Computer, October (1983), 30–36.Google Scholar
  5. Brachman, R. and J. Schmolze. “An Overview of the KL-ONE Knowledge Representation System”. Cognitive Science, 9(2) (1985), 171–216.Google Scholar
  6. Brachman, R, A. Borgida, D. McGuinness and L. Resnick. “The CLASSIC Knowledge Representation System (1989)”. Proceedings of the 11th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (IJCAI), Morgan-Kaufman, 1989.Google Scholar
  7. Chesnutt, D. “The Model Editions Partnership”. D-Lib Magazine. November (1995). Available at Scholar
  8. Flanders, J. The Brown University Womens Writers Project., 1998.Google Scholar
  9. Harie, S., N. Ide, J. Le Maitre, E. Murisasco and J. Véronis. “SgmlQL — An SGML Query Language”. Proceedings of SGML'96, 127 (1996).Google Scholar
  10. Ide, N. “Corpus Encoding Standard: SGML Guidelines for Encoding Linguistic Corpora”. Proceedings of the First International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC), Granada, Spain, 1998a, pp. 463–470. CES Documentation and DTDs available at Scholar
  11. Ide, N. “Encoding Linguistic Corpora”. Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop on Very Large Corpora (WVLC6), Montréal, Canada, 1998b, pp. 9–17.Google Scholar
  12. Minsky, M. “A Framework for Representing Knowledge”. Mind Design. MIT Press, 1981, pp. 95–128.Google Scholar
  13. Patel-Schneider, P. and B. Swartout. Description Logic Knowledge Representation System Specification. Fromthe KRSS group of the ARPA Knowledge Sharing Effort, available at, 1993.Google Scholar
  14. Simons, G. “Using architectural forms to map TEI data into an object-oriented database”. Proceedings of TEI-10, 1997.Google Scholar
  15. Welty, C. “Intelligent Assistance for Navigating the Web”. Proceedings of the 1996 Florida AI Research Symposium. AAAI Press, 1996.Google Scholar
  16. Welty, C. “The Ontological Nature of Subject Taxonomies”. Proceedings of the 1998 International Conference on Formal Ontology in Information Systems. IOS Press, “Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications” series, 1998.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher Welty
    • 1
  • Nacy Ide
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentVassar CollegePoughkeepsieUSA; E-mail

Personalised recommendations