Advertisement

A Natural Language Interface for Information Retrieval on Semantic Web Documents

  • Paulo Quaresma
  • Irene Pimenta Rodrigues
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2663)

Abstract

We present a dialogue system that enables the access in natural language to a web information retrieval system. We use a Web Semantic Language to model the knowledge conveyed by the texts. In this way we are able to obtain the associated knowledge necessary to perform the different analysis stages of natural language sentences.

In the context of information retrieval, we aim to develop a system that, by increasing the interaction management capabilities, is able to achieve a better degree of cooperativeness and to reduce the average number of interactions needed to retrieve the intended set of documents.

The documents in the IR system considered here are composed by the set of documents produced by the Portuguese Attorney General since 1940. These documents were analyzed and an ontology describing their structure and content was defined. Then, they were automatically parsed and a (partial) semantic structure was created. The ontology and the semantic content was represented in the OWL language.

An example of a user interaction session is presented and explained in detail.

Keywords

agents knowledge based systems web semantics information retrieval natural language dialogues 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [ABLP02]
    J. Alferes, A. Brogi, J. Leite, and L. Pereira. Evolving logic programs. In S. Flesca, S. Greco, N. Leone, and G. Ianni, editors, JELIA’02 — Proceedings of the 8th European Conference on Logics and Artificial Intelligence, pages 50–61. Springer-Verlag LNCS 2424, 2002.Google Scholar
  2. [APP+99]_J. J. Alferes, L. M. Pereira, H. Przymusinska, T. C. Przymusinski, and P. Quaresma. Preliminary exploration on actions as updates. In M. C. Meo and M. Vilares-Ferro, editors, Procs. of the 1999 Joint Conference on Declarative Programming (AGP’99), pages 259–271, L’Aquila, Italy, September 1999.Google Scholar
  3. [BG99]
    D. Brickley and R. Guha. Resource Description Framework (RDF) — Schema Specification. W3C, 1999.Google Scholar
  4. [Bic00]
    Eckhard Bick. The Parsing System PALAVRAS: Automatic Grammatical Analysis of Portuguese in a Constraint Grammar Framework. PhD thesis, Århus University, Århus, 2000.Google Scholar
  5. [BvWM+99]_Tania Bueno, Christiane von Wangenheim, Eduardo Mattos, Hugo Hoeschl, and Ricardo Barcia. Jurisconsulto: Retrieval in jurisprudencial text bases using juridical terminology. In Proceedings of the ICAIL’99 — 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 147–155. ACM, June 1999.Google Scholar
  6. [CCC98]
    J. Chu-Carroll and S. Carberry. Response generation in planning dialogues. Computational Linguistics, 24(3), 1998.Google Scholar
  7. [CL99]
    Sandra Carberry and Lynn Lambert. A process model for recognizing communicative acts and modeling negotiation subdialogs. Computational Linguistics, 25(1), 1999.Google Scholar
  8. [GM89]
    Gerald Gazdar and Chris Mellish. Natural Language Processing in PROLOG. Addison-Wesley, 1989.Google Scholar
  9. [GMK97]
    G. Greenleaf, A. Mowbray, and G. King. Law on the net via austlii — 14 m hypertext links can’t be right? In In Information Online and On Disk’97 Conference, Sydney, 1997.Google Scholar
  10. [HSAM90]
    Jerry Hobbs, Mark Stickel, Douglas Appelt, and Paul Martin. Interpretation as abduction. Technical Report SRI Technical Note 499, 333 Ravenswood Ave., Menlo Park, CA 94025, 1990.Google Scholar
  11. [KR93]
    H. Kamp and U. Reyle. From Discourse to Logic. Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1993.Google Scholar
  12. [LA87]
    Diane Litman and James Allen. A plan recognition model for subdialogues in conversation. Cognitive Science, 11(1), 1987.Google Scholar
  13. [Loc98]
    Karen E. Lochbaum. A collaborative planning model of intentional structure. Computational Linguistics, 24(4), 1998.Google Scholar
  14. [LS99]
    O. Lassila and R. Swick. Resource Description Framework (RDF) — Model and Syntax Specification. W3C, 1999.Google Scholar
  15. [OS99]
    James Osborn and Leon Sterling. A judicial search tool using intelligent concept extraction. In Proceedings of the ICAIL’99 — 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 173–181. ACM, June 1999.Google Scholar
  16. [Pol90]
    Martha Pollack. Plans as complex mental attitudes. In Philip Cohen, Jerry Morgan, and Martha Pollack, editors, Intentions in Communications. MIT Press Cambridge, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. [QL95]
    P. Quaresma and J. G. Lopes. Unified logic programming approach to the abduction of plans and intentions in information-seeking dialogues. Journal of Logic Programming, 54, 1995.Google Scholar
  18. [QR01]
    Paulo Quaresma and Irene Rodrigues. Using logic programming to model multi-agent web legal systems — an application report. In Proceedings of the ICAIL’01 — International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, St. Louis, USA, May 2001. ACM.Google Scholar
  19. [QRA01]
    Luis Quintano, Irene Rodrigues, and Salvador Abreu. Relational information retrieval through natural lanaguage analysis. In Proceedings of INAP’01, Tokyo, Japan, October 2001. INAP.Google Scholar
  20. [www00]
    http://www.daml.org. DAML+OIL — DARPA Agent Markup Language, 2000.
  21. [YS99]
    John Yearwood and Andrew Stranieri. The integration of retrieval, reasoning and drafting for refugee law: a third generation legal knowledge based system. In Proceedings of the ICAIL’99 — 7th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, pages 117–125. ACM, June 1999.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paulo Quaresma
    • 1
  • Irene Pimenta Rodrigues
    • 1
  1. 1.Departamento de InformáticaUniversidade de ÉvoraPortugal

Personalised recommendations