Journal of Zhejiang University-SCIENCE A

, Volume 8, Issue 6, pp 864–870 | Cite as

An OWL-based WordNet lexical ontology

  • Huang Xiao-xi 
  • Zhou Chang-le 
Article

Abstract

This paper discribes a data representation for WordNet 2.1 based on Web Ontology Language (OWL). The main components of WordNet database are transformed as classes in OWL, and the relations between synsets or lexcial words are transformed as OWL properties. Our conversion is based on the data file of WordNet instead of the Prolog database. This work can be used to enrich the work in progress of standard conversion of WordNet to the RDF/OWL representation at W3C.

Key words

WordNet Web Ontology Language (OWL) Semantic Web Ontology Natural Language Processing (NLP) 

CLC number

TP18 H03 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aref, M.M., Zhou, Z., 2005. The Ontology Web Language (OWL) for a Multi-Agent Understating System. Proc. IEEE Integration of Knowledge Intensive Multi-Agent Systems. IEEE Computer Society, Waltham, USA, p.586–590. [doi:10.1109/KIMAS.2005.1427149]Google Scholar
  2. Assem, M.V., Gangemi, A., Schreiber, G., 2006. Conversion of WordNet to a Standard RDF/OWL Representation. Proc. 5th International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation. Genoa, Italy, p.237–242.Google Scholar
  3. Bansal, A., Kona, S., Simon, L., Mallya, A., Gupta, G., Hite, T.D., 2005. A Universal Service-Semantics Description Language. Proc. 3rd European Conference on Web Services. IEEE Computer Society, p.1–12. [doi:10.1109/ECOWS.2005.4]Google Scholar
  4. Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O., 2001. The semantic Web. Scientific American, 284(5):34–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brickley, D., Guha, R.V., 2004. RDF Vocabulary Description Language 1.0: RDF Schema. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema, W3C.
  6. Ciorascu, C., Ciorascu, L., Stoffel, K., 2003. knOWLer—Ontological Support for Information Retrieval Systems. Proc. 26th Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference, Workshop on Semantic Web. Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
  7. Daly, J.J., Forgue, M.C., Hirakawa, Y., 2004. World Wide Web Consortium Issues RDF and OWL Recommendations. http://www.w3.org/2004/01/sws-pressrelease.html.en,W3C.
  8. Fellbaum, C., 1998. WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge.MATHGoogle Scholar
  9. Francopoulo, G., George, M., Calzolari, N., Monachini, M., Bel, N., Pet, M., Soria, C., 2006. LMF for Multilingual Specialized Lexicons. LREC Workshop on Acquiring and Representing Multilingual, Specialized Lexicons: The Case of Biomedicine. Genova, Italy, p.27–32.Google Scholar
  10. Graves, A., Gutierrez, C., 2006. Data Representation for WordNet: A Case for RDF. Proc. 3rd Global WordNet Association Conference. Jeju Island, Korea.Google Scholar
  11. Hayes, P., 2004. Resource Description Framework (RDF) Semantics. http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-rdf-mt-20040210, W3C.
  12. Hendler, J., 2001. Agents and the semantic Web. IEEE Intell. Syst., 16(2):30–37. [doi:10.1109/5254.920597]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Horrocks, I., 2002. DAML+OIL: a description logic for the semantic Web. IEEE Data Eng. Bull., 25(1):4–9.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Horrocks, I., Sattler, U., 2005. A Tableaux Decision Procedure for SHIOQ. Proc. 19th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence. Morgan Kaufman, p.448–453.Google Scholar
  15. Huang, X.X., Zhou, C.L., 2005. A Logical Approach for Metaphor Understanding. Proc. 2005 IEEE International Conference on Natural Language Processing and Knowledge Engineering. IEEE Computer Society, Wuhan, China, p.268–271. [doi:10.1109/NLPKE.2005.1598746]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Klyne, G., Carroll, J., 2004. Resource Description Framework (RDF): Concept and Abstract Syntax. http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts, W3C.
  17. Lin, D., 1998. Dependency-based Evaluation of MINIPAR. Proc. Workshop on the Evaluation of Parsing Systems. Granada, Spain, p.298–312.Google Scholar
  18. Miller, G.A., Hristea, F., 2006. WordNet nouns: classes and instances. Computational Linguistics, 32(1):1–3. [doi:10.1162/coli.2006.32.1.1]CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Takenobu, T., Sornlertlamvanich, V., Charoenporn, T., Calzolari, N., Monachini, M., Soria, C., Huang, C.R., Xia, Y.J., Yu, H., Prevot, L., et al., 2006. Infrastructure for Standardization of Asian Language Resources. Proc. COLING/ACL 2006 Main Conference Poster Sessions. Association for Computational Linguistics. Sydney, Australia, p.827–834.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Yergeau, F., Bray, T., Paoli, J., Sperberg-McQueen, C.M., Maler, E., 2004. eXtensible Markup Language (XML) 1.0. http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml, W3C.

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Huang Xiao-xi 
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhou Chang-le 
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.School of Computer Science and TechnologyZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Center for the Study of Language and CognitionZhejiang UniversityHangzhouChina
  3. 3.Institute of Artificial IntelligenceXiamen UniversityXiamenChina

Personalised recommendations