On the Automatic Generation of Intermediate Logic Forms for WordNet Glosses

  • Rodrigo Agerri
  • Anselmo Peñas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6008)


This paper presents an automatically generated Intermediate Logic Form of WordNet’s glosses. Our proposed logic form includes neo-Davidsonian reification in a simple and flat syntax close to natural language. We offer a comparison with other semantic representations such as those provided by Hobbs and Extended WordNet. The Intermediate Logic Forms are straightforwardly obtained from the output of a pipeline consisting of a part-of-speech tagger, a dependency parser and our own Intermediate Logic Form generator (all freely available tools). We apply the pipeline to the glosses of WordNet 3.0 to obtain a lexical resource ready to be used as knowledge base or resource for a variety of tasks involving some kind of semantic inference. We present a qualitative evaluation of the resource and discuss its possible application in Natural Language Understanding.


Dependency Graph Word Sense Disambiguation Computational Linguistics Lexical Resource Syntactic Parsing 
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. 1.
    Dagan, I., Glickman, O., Magnini, B.: The PASCAL Recognising Textual Entailment challenge. In: Quiñonero-Candela, J., Dagan, I., Magnini, B., d’Alché-Buc, F. (eds.) MLCW 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3944, pp. 177–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clark, P., Murray, W., Thompson, J., Harrison, P., Hobbs, J., Fellbaum, C.: On the role of lexical and world knowledge in RTE3. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, ACL 2007, Prague, pp. 54–59 (2007)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bos, J., Markert, K.: Recognizing textual entailment with robust logical inference. In: Quiñonero-Candela, J., Dagan, I., Magnini, B., d’Alché-Buc, F. (eds.) MLCW 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3944, pp. 404–426. Springer, Heidelberg (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Giampiccolo, D., Magnini, B., Dagan, I., Dollan, B.: The Third PASCAL Recognizing Textual Entailment Challenge. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Textual Entailment and Paraphrasing, Association for Computational Linguistics (ACL 2007), Prague, pp. 1–9 (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacCartney, B., Manning, C.: Modeling semantic containment and exclusion in natural language inference. In: Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (Coling 2008), Manchester, UK, pp. 521–528 (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harabagiu, S.M., Miller, G.A., Moldovan, D.I.: eXtended WordNet - A Morphologically and Semantically Enhanced Resource (2003),
  7. 7.
    Clark, P., Fellbaum, C., Hobbs, J.R., Harrison, P., Murray, W.R., Thompson, J.: Augmenting WordNet for Deep Understanding of Text. In: Bos, J., Delmonte, R. (eds.) Semantics in Text Processing. STEP 2008 Conference Proceedings. Research in Computational Semantics, vol. 1, pp. 45–57. College Publications (2008)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davidson, D.: Essays on Actions and Events. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1980)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kamp, H., Reyle, U.: From Discourse to Logic: Introduction to Modeltheoretic semantics of natural language, formal language and Discourse Representation Theory. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (1993)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hobbs, J.: Ontological promiscuity. In: Annual Meeting of the ACL, Chicago, pp. 61–69 (1985)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bos, J.: Computational semantics in discourse: Underspecification, resolution, inference. Journal of Logic, Language and Information 13, 139–157 (2004)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rus, V.: Logic Form for WordNet Glosses and Application to Question Answering. PhD thesis, Computer Science Department, School of Engineering, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas (2002)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Moldovan, D., Rus, V.: Explaining Answers with Extended WordNet. In: Proceedings of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2001 (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Charniak, E.: A Maximum-Entropy-Inspired Parser. In: Procedings of the North American Association for Computational Linguistics, NAACL (2000)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Information Science Institute, University of Southern California: Logical Forms for WordNet 3.0 glosses (2007),
  16. 16.
    WordNet Gloss Disambiguation Project, Princeton University: Semantically annotated gloss corpus (2008),
  17. 17.
    Alias-i: Lingpipe 3.8.2 (2008),
  18. 18.
    de Marneffe, M.C., MacCartney, B., Manning, C.: Generating typed dependency parses from phrase structure parses. In: Proceedings of Language Resources and Evaluation Conference, LREC (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Clark, S., Curran, J.: C&C tools (v1.0),
  20. 20.
    Phan, X.H.: CRFTagger: CRF English POS Tagger (2006),
  21. 21.
    Clark, S., Curran, J.: Wide-coverage efficient statistical parsing with CCG and Log-Linear Models. Computational Linguistics 33, 493–553 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Marcus, M.P., Santorini, B., Marcinkiewicz, M.A.: Building a Large Annotation Corpus of English: The Penn Treebank. Computational Linguistics 19, 313–330 (1993)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Toutanova, K., Klein, D., Manning, C., Singer, Y.: Feature-Rich Part-of-Speech Tagging with a Cyclic Dependency Network. In: Proceedings of HLT-NAACL, pp. 252–259 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    The Stanford Natural Language Processing Group: The Stanford Parser: A statistical parser,
  25. 25.
    Prolog Version of WordNet 3.0 (2008),
  26. 26.
    Ruppenhofer, J., Ellsworth, M., Petruck, M., Johnson, C., Sheffczyk, J.: Framenet ii: Extended theory and practice (2006),
  27. 27.
    Agirre, E., Soroa, A.: Personalizing pagerank for word sense disambiguation. In: Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics (EACL 2009), Athens, Greece (2009)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cuadros, M., Rigau, G.: Semeval-2007 task 16: Evaluation of wide coverage knowledge resources. In: Proceedings of the Fourth International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations (SemEval 2007), Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 81–86. Association for Computational Linguistics (2007)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Harabagiu, S., Miller, G., Moldovan, D.: Wordnet 2 - a morphologically and semantic enhanced resource. In: Proceedings of SIGLEX (1999)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rodrigo Agerri
    • 1
  • Anselmo Peñas
    • 2
  1. 1.Vicomtech Research CentreUniversidad Politécnica de Madrid (UPM)Donostia-San SebastiánSpain
  2. 2.NLP & IR Group UNEDMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations