Design Patterns for Engineering the Ontology-Lexicon Interface

Chapter

Abstract

In this paper, we combine two ideas: one is the recently identified need to extend ontologies with a richer lexical layer, and the other is the use of ontology design patterns for ontology engineering. We combine both to develop the first set of design patterns for ontology-lexica, using the ontology-lexicon model, lemon. We show how these patterns can be used to model nouns, verbs and adjectives and what implications these patterns impose on both the lexicon and the ontology. We implemented these patterns by means of a domain-specific language that can generate the patterns from a short description, which can significantly reduce the effort in developing ontology-lexica. We exemplify this with the use case of constructing a lexicon for the DBpedia ontology.

Key Words

Design patterns Lexicon Ontology Ontology engineering Ontology-lexica 

References

  1. Baader, F. (2003). The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bizer, C., Lehmann, J., Kobilarov, G., Auer, S., Becker, C., Cyganiak, R., et al. (2009). DBpedia-A crystallization point for the Web of data. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 7(3), 154–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bouillon, P., & Viegas, E. (1999). The description of adjectives for natural language processing: Theoretical and applied perspectives. In Proceedings of Description des Adjectifs pour les Traitements Informatiques. Traitement Automatique des Langues Naturelles (pp. 20–30).Google Scholar
  4. Buitelaar, P. (2010). Ontology-based semantic lexicons: Mapping between terms and object descriptions. In Ontology and the Lexicon (pp. 212–223). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Haase, P., & Sintek, M. (2009). Towards linguistically grounded ontologies. In The Semantic Web: Research and applications (pp. 111–125). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  6. Buitelaar, P., Olejnik, D., & Sintek, M. (2004). A Protégé plug-in for ontology extraction from text based on linguistic analysis. In The Semantic Web: Research and applications (pp. 31–44). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Cimiano, P., Buitelaar, P., McCrae, J., & Sintek, M. (2011). LexInfo: A declarative model for the lexicon-ontology interface. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 9(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cimiano, P., McCrae, J., Buitelaar, P., & Montiel-Ponsoda, E. (2013). On the role of senses in the ontology-lexicon. In New trends of research in ontologies and Lexical resources (pp. 7–25). Heidelberg: Springer.Google Scholar
  9. Comrie, B. (1976). Aspect: An introduction to the study of verbal aspect and related problems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Davidson, D. (1967). The logical form of action sentences. In N. Rescher (Ed.), The logic of decision and action (pp. 81–95). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
  11. De Melo, G., & Weikum, G. (2008). Language as a foundation of the Semantic Web. In Proceedings of the 7th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2008) (Vol. 401).Google Scholar
  12. Debusmann, R., Duchier, D., Koller, A., Kuhlmann, M., Smolka, G., & Thater, S. (2004). A relational syntax-semantics interface based on dependency grammar. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 176–182).Google Scholar
  13. Egg, M., Koller, A., & Niehren, J. (2001). The constraint language for lambda structures. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 10(4), 457–485.CrossRefMATHMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  14. Farrar, S., & Langendoen, D. T. (2003). A linguistic ontology for the semantic web. GLOT International, 7(3), 97–100.Google Scholar
  15. Fellbaum, C. (2010). WordNet. Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  16. Forsberg, M., & Ranta, A. (2003). The BNF converter: A high-level tool for implementing well-behaved programming languages. In NWPT’02 Proceedings, Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences (pp. 1–16).Google Scholar
  17. Fowler, M., & Parsons, R. (2010). Domain-specific languages. Upper Saddle River: Addison-Wesley Professional.Google Scholar
  18. Francopoulo, G., George, M., Calzolari, N., Monachini, M., Bel, N., Pet, M., et al. (2006). Lexical markup framework (LMF). In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 233–236).Google Scholar
  19. Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Masolo, C., Oltramari, A., & Schneider, L. (2002). Sweetening ontologies with DOLCE. In Knowledge engineering and knowledge management: Ontologies and the Semantic Web (pp. 166–181). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Gangemi, A., Navigli, R., & Velardi, P. (2003). The OntoWordNet project: Extension and axiomatization of conceptual relations in WordNet. In On the move to meaningful Internet systems 2003 (pp. 820–838). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Gangemi, A., & Presutti, V. (2009). Ontology design patterns. In Handbook on ontologies (pp. 221–243). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gruber, T. R. (1995). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. International Journal of Human Computer Studies,43(5), 907–928.Google Scholar
  23. Halle, B., & Ronald, G. (2001). Business rules applied: Building better systems using the business rules approach. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  24. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P. F., & Van Harmelen, F. (2003). From SHIQ and RDF to OWL: The making of a web ontology language. Web Semantics: Science, Services and Agents on the World Wide Web, 1(1), 7–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ide, N., & Romary, L. (2006). Representing linguistic corpora and their annotations. In Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 3205–3212).Google Scholar
  26. Khan, F., Frontini, F., Grata, R. D., Monachini, M., & Quochi, V. (2013). Generative lexicon theory and linguistic linked open data. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Generative Approaches to the Lexicon (pp. 62–69).Google Scholar
  27. Lefrançois, M., & Gandon, F. (2011). ULiS: An expert system on linguistics to support multilingual management of interlingual knowledge bases. In 9th International Conference on Terminology and Artificial Intelligence (p. 108).Google Scholar
  28. McCrae, J., Aguado-de Cea, G., Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., Gomez-Perez, A., et al. (2012a). Interchanging lexical resources on the Semantic Web. Language Resources and Evaluation, 46(4), 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCrae, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., & Cimiano, P. (2012b). Collaborative semantic editing of linked data lexica. In Proceedings of the 2012 International Conference on Language Resource and Evaluation (pp. 2619–2625).Google Scholar
  30. McGuinness, D., & Van Harmelen, F. (2004). OWL web ontology language overview. W3C Recommendation, 10, 2004–03. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl-features/
  31. Mel’Cuk, I. (1981). Meaning-text models: A recent trend in Soviet linguistics. Annual Review of Anthropology, 10, 27–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Aguado de Cea, G., Gómez-Pérez, A., & Peters, W. (2008). Modelling multilinguality in ontologies. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Computational Linguistics (pp. 67–70).Google Scholar
  33. Nirenburg, S., Beale, S., Mahesh, K., Onyshkevych, B., Raskin, V., Viegas, E., et al. (1996). Lexicons in the Mikrokosmos project. In Proceedings of the Society for Artificial Intelligence and Simulated Behavior Workshop on Multilinguality in the Lexicon (pp. 26–33).Google Scholar
  34. Oltramari, A., Vetere, G., Lenzerini, M., Gangemi, A., & Guarino, N. (2010). Senso comune. In Proceedings of the Seventh Conference on International Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 3873–3877).Google Scholar
  35. Presutti, V., Daga, E., Gangemi, A., & Blomqvist, E. (2009). eXtreme design with content ontology design patterns. In Workshop on Ontology Patterns (p. 83).Google Scholar
  36. Prévot, L., Huang, C., Calzolari, N., Gangemi, A., Lenci, A., & Oltramari, A. (2010). Ontology and the lexicon: A multi-disciplinary perspective. In Ontology and the Lexicon: A natural language processing perspective (pp. 3–24). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pustejovsky, J. (1991). The generative lexicon. Computational Linguistics, 17(4), 409–441.Google Scholar
  38. Raskin, V., & Nirenburg, S. (1995). Lexical semantics of adjectives. New Mexico State University, Computing Research Laboratory Technical Report, MCCS-95-288.Google Scholar
  39. Raskin, V., & Nirenburg, S. (1998). An applied ontological semantic microtheory of adjective meaning for natural language processing. Machine Translation, 13(2), 135–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Reymonet, A., Thomas, J., & Aussenac-Gilles, N. (2007). Modelling ontological and terminological resources in OWL DL. In Proceedings of OntoLex07 Workshop at the 6th International Semantic Web Conference.Google Scholar
  41. Stassen, L. (2011). Comparative constructions. In M. Dryer & M. Haspelmath (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures online (Chap. 121). Available online at http://wals.info/chapter/121.
  42. Tappolet, J., & Bernstein, A. (2009). Applied temporal RDF: Efficient temporal querying of RDF data with SPARQL. In The Semantic Web: Research and applications (pp. 308–322). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  43. Unger, C., Hieber, F., & Cimiano, P. (2010). Generating LTAG grammars from a lexicon-ontology interface. In Proceedings of the 10th International Workshop on Tree Adjoining Grammars and Related Formalisms (TAG+10) (pp. 61–68).Google Scholar
  44. Unger, C., McCrae, J., Walter, S., Winter, S., & Cimiano, P. (2013). A lemon lexicon for DBpedia. In Proceedings of the NLP+DBpedia Workshop Co-located with the 12th International Semantic Web Conference.Google Scholar
  45. Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. In The philosophical review, 66(2), 143–160.Google Scholar
  46. Wampler, D., & Payne, A. (2008). Programming Scala (Chap. 11). Sebastopol: O’Reilly.Google Scholar
  47. Windhouwer, M. (2012). RELcat: A relation registry for ISOcat data categories. In Proceedings of the Eight International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (pp. 3661–3664).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.AG Semantic Computing, CITECBielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations