Automatic Verbalisation of SNOMED Classes Using OntoVerbal

  • Shao Fen Liang
  • Robert Stevens
  • Donia Scott
  • Alan Rector
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6747)

Abstract

SNOMED is a large description logic based terminology for recording in electronic health records. Often, neither the labels nor the description logic definitions are easy for users to understand. Furthermore, information is increasingly being recorded not just using individual SNOMED concepts but also using complex expressions in the description logic (“post-coordinated” concepts). Such post-coordinated expressions are likely to be even more complex than other definitions, and therefore can have no pre-assigned labels. Automatic verbalisation will be useful both for understanding and quality assurance of SNOMED definitions, and for helping users to understand post-coordinated expressions. OntoVerbal is a system that presents a compositional terminology expressed in OWL as natural language. We describe the application of OntoVerbal to SNOMED-CT, whereby SNOMED classes are presented as textual paragraphs through the use of natural language generation technology.

Keywords

ontology verbalisation natural language generation describing ontologies 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Baader, F., Horrocks, I., Sattler, U.: Description logics as ontology languages for the semantic web. In: Hutter, D., Stephan, W. (eds.) Mechanizing Mathematical Reasoning. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 2605, pp. 228–248. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baud, R.H., Rodrigues, J.-M., Wagner, J.C., et al.: Validation of concept representation using natural language generation. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 841 (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Callaway, C.B.: Integrating discourse markers into a pipelined natural language generation architecture. In: 41st Annual Meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, vol. 1, pp. 264–271 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clark, H.H.: Psycholinguistics. MIT Press, Cambridge (1999)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dalianis, H.: Aggregation as a subtask of text and sentence planning. In: Stewman, J.H. (ed.) Florida AI Research Symposium, FLAIRS 1996, pp. 1–5 (1996)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mann, W.C., Thompson, S.A.: Rhetorical Structure Theory: toward a functional theory of text organisation. Text 8, 243–281 (1988)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Power, R., Scott, D., Bouanyad-Agha, N.: Document structure. Computational Linguistics 29, 211–260 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Reape, M., Mellish, C.: Just what is aggregation, anyway? In: European Workshop on Natural Language Generation (1999)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scott, D., Souza, C.S.: d.: Getting the message across in RST-based text generation. In: Mellish, C., Dale, R., Zock, M. (eds.) Current Research in Natural Language Generation, pp. 31–56. Academic Press, London (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Walker, M.A., Joshi, A.K., Prince, E.F.: Centering Theory in Discourse. Oxford University Press, Oxford (1998)MATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shao Fen Liang
    • 1
  • Robert Stevens
    • 1
  • Donia Scott
    • 2
  • Alan Rector
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.School of InformaticsUniversity of SussexBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations