Context and Terminology in the Multilingual Semantic Web

Chapter

Abstract

One of the main challenges of the Multilingual Semantic Web (MSW) is ontology localization. This first needs a representation framework that allows for the inclusion of different syntactic, lexical, conceptual and semantic features, but it also needs to account for dynamism and context from both a monolingual and multilingual perspective. We understand dynamism as the changing nature of both concepts and terms due to contextual constraints, whereas context is defined by the different pragmatic factors that modulate such dynamism (e.g. specialized domains, cultures, communicative situations). Context is thus an important construct when describing the concepts and terms of any domain in monolingual resources. However, in multilingual resources, context also affects interlingual correspondences. When dealing with multilingual ontologies, context features must be extended to include translation relations and degrees of equivalence.

Key Words

Concept dynamics Context Term variants Terminology Translation relations 

References

  1. Aguado de Cea, G., & Montiel-Ponsoda, E. (2012). Term variants in ontologies. In Proceedings of the 30th Conference of AESLA, Lleida, Spain.Google Scholar
  2. Assoja, K., Gracia, J., Aggarwal, N., & Gómez-Pérez, A. (2012). Using cross-lingual explicit semantic analysis for improving ontology translation. In Proceedings of the Second Workshop on Applying Machine Learning Techniques to Optimise the Divion of Labour in Hybrid MT (COLING), Mumbai, India.Google Scholar
  3. Berners-Lee, T. (2006). Linked Data - Design Issues. Online.Google Scholar
  4. Bowker, L., & Hawkins, S. (2006). Variation in the organization of medical terms. Exploring some motivations for term choice. Terminology, 12(1), 79–110.Google Scholar
  5. Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., McCrae, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., & Declerck, T. (2011). Ontology lexicalisation: The lemon perspective. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Terminology and Artificial Intelligence, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  6. Cimiano, P., McCrae, J., Buitelaar, P., & Montiel-Ponsoda, E. (2012). On the role of senses in the ontology-lexicon. In A. Oltramari, P. Vossen, L. Qin, & E. Hovy (Eds.), New trends of research in ontologies and lexical resources. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  7. Cimiano, P., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Buitelaar, P., Espinoza, M., & Gómez Pérez, A. (2010). A note on ontology localization. Applied Ontology, 5(2), 1–10.Google Scholar
  8. Daille, B. (2005). Variations and application-oriented terminology engineering. Terminology, 11(1), 181–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Declerck, T., & Gromann, D. (2012). Combining three ways of conveying knowledge: Modularization of domain, terminological, and linguistic knowledge in ontologies. In CEUR (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International Workshop on Modular Ontologies, Graz, Austria (Vol. 875, pp. 28–40).Google Scholar
  10. Dong, H., Hussain, F., & Chang, E. (2010). A context-aware semantic similarity model for ontology environments. Concurrency and Computation: Practice & Experience, 23(5), 505–524.Google Scholar
  11. Espinoza, M., Gómez-Pérez, A., & Mena, E. (2008). Enriching an ontology with multilingual information. In Proceedings of the 5th European Semantic Web Conference, Tenerife, Spain.Google Scholar
  12. Espinoza, M., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., & Gómez-Pérez, A. (2009). Ontology localization. In A. Press (Ed.), 5th International Conference on Knowledge Capture, Redondo Beach, USA.Google Scholar
  13. Fernández-Silva, S., Freixa, J., & Cabré, M. (2011). A proposed method for analysing the dynamics of cognition through term variation. Terminology, 17(1), 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Freixa, J. (2006). Causes of denominative variation in terminology. A typology proposal. Terminology, 12(1), 51–77.Google Scholar
  15. Fu, B., Brennan, R., & O’Sullivan, D. (2010). Cross-lingual ontology mapping and its use on the multilingual semantic web. In 2nd Workshop on the Multilingual Semantic Web, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  16. Gangemi, A. (2012). Hybridizing formal and linguistic semantics for the multilingual semantic web. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Multilingual Semantic Web, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  17. Gracia, J., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., & Gómez Pérez, A. (2012). Cross-lingual linking on the multilingual web of data. In Proceedings of the 3rd Workshop on the Multilingual Semantic Web, Boston, USA.Google Scholar
  18. Gromann, D., & Declerck, T. (2014). Cross-lingual correcting and completive patterns for multilingual ontology labels. In P. Buitelaar & P. Cimiano (Eds.), Towards the multilingual semantic web: Principles, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43585-4.Google Scholar
  19. Hirst, G. (2014). Overcoming linguistics barriers to the multilingual semantic web. In P. Buitelaar & P. Cimiano (Eds.), Towards the multilingual semantic web: Principles, methods and applications. Berlin: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-662-43585-4.Google Scholar
  20. House, J. (2006). Text and context in translation. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 338–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. León Araúz, P., Gómez-Romero, J., & Bobillo, F. (2012). A fuzzy ontology extension of wordnet and eurowordnet for specialized knowledge. In Proceedings of the 10th Terminology and Knowledge Engineering Conference, Madrid, Spain (pp. 139–154).Google Scholar
  22. León Araúz, P., Reimerink, A., & Aragón, A. (2013). Dynamism and context in specialized knowledge. Terminology, 19(1), 31–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Leroi, V., & Holland, J. (2010). Guidelines for mapping into SKOS, dealing with translations. Online. Deliverable D.7.2 for the ECP-2005-CULT-038099 project.Google Scholar
  24. McCrae, J., Aguado-de Cea, G., Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., Gómez-Pérez, A., et al. (2010). The lemon cookbook. Online.Google Scholar
  25. McCrae, J., Aguado de Cea, G., Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Declerk, T., Gómez-Pérez, A., et al. (2012). Interchanging lexical resources on the Semantic Web. Language Resources and Evaluation, 46, 701–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCrae, J., Espinoza, M., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Aguado-de Cea, G., & Cimiano, P. (2011). Combining statistical and semantic approaches to the translation of ontologies and taxonomies. In Proceedings of the 5th Workshop on Syntax, Semantics and Structure in Statistical Translation, Portland, USA (pp. 116–125).Google Scholar
  27. Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Aguado de Cea, G., & McCrae, J. (2012). Representing term variants in lemon. In Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Terminology and Artificial Intelligence, Paris, France.Google Scholar
  28. Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Gracia, J., Aguado-de Cea, G., Buitelaar, P., Wunner, T., & Declerk, T. (2010). Multilingual ontologies for networked knowledge. Online. D2.1 Ontology-lexicon model. Final Deliverable for the FP7-ICT-4-248458 project.Google Scholar
  29. Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Gracia, J., Aguado de Cea, G., & Gómez-Pérez, A. (2011). Representing translations on the semantic web. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop on the Multilingual Semantic Web, Bonn, Germany.Google Scholar
  30. Newmark, P. (1981). Approaches to translation. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  31. Nida, E., & Taber, C. (1969). The theory and practice of translation. Leiden: EJ. Brill.Google Scholar
  32. Nord, C. (1997). Translating as a purposeful activity. Functionalist Approaches explained. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome.Google Scholar
  33. Picht, H., & Draskau, J. (1985). Terminology: An introduction. Guildford: University of Surrey.Google Scholar
  34. Rogers, M. (2004). Multidimensionality in concepts systems: A bilingual textual perspective. Terminology, 10(2), 215–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Singh, S., & Vajirkar, P. (2003). Context-aware data mining using ontologies. In Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Conceptual Modeling, Japan (pp. 405–418).Google Scholar
  36. Vossen, P. (2004). EuroWordNet: A multilingual database of autonomous and language-specific wordnets connected via an interlingual index. International Journal of Lexicography, 17(2), 161–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Translation and InterpretingUniversity of Granada, BuensucesoGranadaSpain

Personalised recommendations