FootbOWL: Using a Generic Ontology of Football Competition for Planning Match Summaries

  • Nadjet Bouayad-Agha
  • Gerard Casamayor
  • Leo Wanner
  • Fernando Díez
  • Sergio López Hernández
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6643)


We present a two-layer OWL ontology-based Knowledge Base (KB) that allows for flexible content selection and discourse structuring in Natural Language text Generation (NLG) and discuss its use for these two tasks. The first layer of the ontology contains an application-independent base ontology. It models the domain and was not designed with NLG in mind. The second layer, which is added on top of the base ontology, models entities and events that can be inferred from the base ontology, including inferable logico-semantic relations between individuals. The nodes in the KB are weighted according to learnt models of content selection, such that a subset of them can be extracted. The extraction is done using templates that also consider semantic relations between the nodes and a simple user profile. The discourse structuring submodule maps the semantic relations to discourse relations and forms discourse units to then arrange them into a coherent discourse graph. The approach is illustrated and evaluated on a KB that models the First Spanish Football League.


Generic Ontology Discourse Relation Discourse Structure Core Node Natural Language Generation 
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.


  1. 1.
    Barzilay, R., Lapata, M.: Collective content selection for concept-to-text generation. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Language Technology and Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bohnet, B., Wanner, L.: Open Source Graph Transducer Interpreter and Grammar Development Environment. In: Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2010 (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bontcheva, K., Wilks, Y.: Automatic Report Generation from Ontologies: The MIAKT Approach. In: Meziane, F., Métais, E. (eds.) NLDB 2004. LNCS, vol. 3136, pp. 324–335. Springer, Heidelberg (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Demir, S., Carberry, S., McCoy, K.F.: A Discourse-Aware Graph-Based Content-Selection Framework. In: Proceedings of the International Natural Language Generation Conference (2010)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    O’Donnell, M., Mellish, C., Oberlander, J., Knott, A.: ILEX: An architecture for a dynamic hypertext generation system. Natural Language Engineering 7, 225–250 (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Duboue, P.A., McKeown, K.R.: Statistical Acquisition of Content Selection Rules for Natural Language Generation. In: Proceedings of Empirical Methods for Natural Language Processing (EMNLP), pp. 121–128 (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dukle, K.: A Prototype Query-Answering Engine Using Semantic Reasoning. Master Thesis. University of South Carolina (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Galanis, D., Androutsopoulos, I.: Generating Multilingual Descriptions from Linguistically Annotated OWL Ontologies: the NaturalOWL System. In: Proceedings of the 11th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (ENLG 2007). Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hovy, E.H.: Automated Discourse Generation Using Discourse Structure Relations. Artificial Intelligence 63(1-2), 341–386 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kelly, C., Copestake, A., Karamanis, N.: Investigating content selection for language generation using machine learning. In: Proceedings of the 12th European Workshop on Natural Language Generation, pp. 130–137 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kittredge, R., Korelsky, T., Rambow, O.: On the need for domain communication knowledge. Computational Intelligence 7(4), 305–314 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lenat, D.B.: CYC: a large-scale investment in knowledge infrastructure. Communications of the ACM 38(11), 33–38 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mann, W., Thompson, S.: Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional thoery of text organization. Text 8(3) (1988)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mellish, C., Dale, R.: Evaluation in the Context of Natural Language Generation. Computer Speech and Language 12, 349–373 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mellish, C., Pan, J.: Natural Language Directed Inference from Ontologies. Artificial Intelligence 172(10), 1285–1315 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Reiter, E.: An Architecture for Data-to-Text Systems. In: Proceedings of ENLG 2007, pp. 97–104 (2007)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Schapire, R.E., Singer, Y.: BoosTexter: A boosting-based system for text categorization. Machine Learning 39(2/3), 135–168 (2000)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Tsinaraki, C., Polydoros, K.F., Christodoulakis, S.: Ontology-based semantic indexing for mpeg-7 and tv-anytime audiovisual content. Multimedia Tools and Applications 26(3), 299–325 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uschold, M., King, M.: Towards a Methodology for Building Ontologies. In: Proceedings of the Workshop on Basic Ontological Issues in Knowledge Sharing, Held in Conduction with IJCAI 1995, pp. 6.1–6.10 (1995)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wanner, L., Bohnet, B., Bouayad-Agha, N., Lareau, F., Nicklass, D.: MARQUIS: Generation of User-Tailored Multilingual Air Quality Bulletins. Applied Artificial Intelligence 24(10), 914–952 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wilcock, G.: Talking owls: Towards an ontology verbalizer. In: Proceedings of the Human Language Technology for the Semantic Web and Web Services, ISWC 2003, Sanibel Island, Florida, pp. 109–112 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nadjet Bouayad-Agha
    • 1
  • Gerard Casamayor
    • 1
  • Leo Wanner
    • 1
    • 2
  • Fernando Díez
    • 3
  • Sergio López Hernández
    • 3
  1. 1.DTICUniversity Pompeu FabraBarcelonaSpain
  2. 2.Catalan Institute for Research and Advanced Studies (ICREA)Spain
  3. 3.DIIUniversidad Autónoma de MadridMadridSpain

Personalised recommendations