A Semantic Web Based Core Engine to Efficiently Perform Sentiment Analysis

  • Diego Reforgiato Recupero
  • Sergio Consoli
  • Aldo Gangemi
  • Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese
  • Daria Spampinato
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8798)


In this paper we present a domain-independent framework that creates a sentiment analysis model by mixing Semantic Web technologies with natural language processing approaches (This work is supported by the project PRISMA SMART CITIES, funded by the Italian Ministry of Research and Education under the program PON.). Our system, called Sentilo, provides a core sentiment analysis engine which fully exploits semantics. It identifies the holder of an opinion, topics and sub-topics the opinion is referred to, and assesses the opinion trigger. Sentilo uses an OWL opinion ontology to represent all this information with an RDF graph where holders and topics are resolved on Linked Data. Anyone can plug its own opinion scoring algorithm to compute scores of opinion expressing words and come up with a combined scoring algorithm for each identified entities and the overall sentence.


Sentic computing Sentiment analysis Semantic features 


  1. 1.
    Bing, L.: Sentiment analysis and subjectivity. In: Invited Chapter for the Handbook of Natural Language Processing (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bos, J.: Wide-coverage semantic analysis with boxer. In: Bos, J., Delmonte, R. (eds.) STEP 2008 Conference Proceedings on Semantics in Text Processing. vol. 1. Research in Computational Semantics, pp. 277–286. College Publications (2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Buitelaar, P., Arcan, M., Iglesias, C.A., Sanchez, J.F., Strapparava, C.: D3.1 - language resource model. Specification for semantic interoperability. In: EUROSENTIMENT Project FP7, pp. 1–21 (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cambria, E., Havasi, C., Hussain, A.: SenticNet 2: a semantic and affective resource for opinion mining and sentiment analysis. In: Youngblood, G.M., McCarthy, P.M. (eds.) FLAIRS Conference, pp. 202–207. AAAI Press (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davidson, D.: The logical form of action sentences. In: Rescher, N. (ed.) The Logic of Decision and Action, pp. 81–120. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh (1967)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Djordjevic, B., Curran, J.R., Clark, S.: Improving the efficiency of a wide-coverage CCG parser. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Parsing Technologies, pp. 39–47. Association for Computational Linguistics (2007)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gangemi, A.: What’s in a schema? In: Huang, C., Calzolari, N., Gangemi, A., Lenci, A., Oltramari, A., Prevot, L. (eds.) Ontology and the Lexicon, pp. 144–182. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V., Reforgiato, D.: Frame-based detection of opinion holders and topics: a model and a tool. IEEE Comput. Intell. Mag. 9(1), 31–43 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Liu, H., Singh, P.: ConceptNet: a practical commonsense reasoning toolkit. BT Technol. J. 22(4), 211–226 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Saif, H., He, Y., Alani, H.: Semantic sentiment analysis of twitter. In: Cudré-Mauroux, P., Heflin, J., Sirin, E., Tudorache, T., Euzenat, J., Hauswirth, M., Parreira, J.X., Hendler, J., Schreiber, G., Bernstein, A., Blomqvist, E. (eds.) ISWC 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7649, pp. 508–524. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Diego Reforgiato Recupero
    • 1
  • Sergio Consoli
    • 1
  • Aldo Gangemi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Andrea Giovanni Nuzzolese
    • 1
    • 3
  • Daria Spampinato
    • 1
  1. 1.STLab-ISTC Consiglio Nazionale delle RicercheRomeItaly
  2. 2.LIPN, University Paris 13, Sorbone Cit‘e, UMR CNRSParisFrance
  3. 3.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversity of BolognaBolognaItaly

Personalised recommendations