Annotations that Effectively Contribute to Semantic Interpretation

Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 47)

Abstract

This chapter presents a new perspective on the use of semantic annotations. It is argued that semantic annotations should themselves have a semantics in order to be really useful. It is shown that, when this is the case, the information in a semantic annotation can be effectively combined with the results of compositional semantic analysis, with the effect of removing some of the underspecification in a compositional interpretation, or narrowing the interpretation down to one that is appropriate in a given context.

Keywords

Noun Phrase Semantic Representation Abstract Syntax Semantic Role Semantic Annotation 
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.

References

  1. Asher, N. (1993). Reference to abstract objects in discourse. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonial, C., Corvey, W., Petukhova, V., Palmer, M., & Bunt, H. (2011). A hierarchical unification of LIRICS and VerbNet thematic roles. In Proceedings workshop on semantic annotation for computational linguistic resources, Stanford. Google Scholar
  3. Bos, J. (1996). Predicate logic unplugged. In Proceedings 10th Amsterdam colloquium (pp. 133–143). Google Scholar
  4. Bunt, H. (2007a). The semantics of semantic annotation. In Proceedings of the 21st Pacific Asia conference on language, information and computation (PACLIC21), Korean Society for Language and Information (pp. 13–29). Google Scholar
  5. Bunt, H. (2007b). Underspecified semantic representation: Which technique for what purpose? In H. Bunt, & R. Muskens (Eds.), Computing meaning, vol. 3 (pp. 55–85). Dordrecht: Springer. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bunt, H. (2010). A methodology for designing semantic annotation languages exploiting semantic-syntactic ISO-morphisms. In Proceedings of the second international conference on global interoperability for language resources (ICGL 2010), Hong Kong. Google Scholar
  7. Bunt, H. (2011). Introducing abstract syntax + semantics in semantic annotations, and its consequences for the annotation of time and events. In E. Lee & A. Yoong (Eds.), Recent trends in language and knowledge processing (Vol. 2). Seoul: Hankukmunhwasa. Google Scholar
  8. Bunt, H. (2013a). A methodology for designing semantic annotations (TiCC Technical Report TR 2013-001). Tilburg University. Google Scholar
  9. Bunt, H. (2013b). A context-change semantics for dialogue acts. In H. Bunt, J. Bos & S. Pulman (Eds.), Computing meaning (Vol. 4, pp. 177–201). Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  10. Bunt, H., & Overbeeke, C. (2008a). An extensible, compositional semantics of temporal annotation. In Proceedings of LAW-II: The second linguistic annotation workshop, Marrakech. Google Scholar
  11. Bunt, H., & Overbeeke, C. (2008b). Towards formal interpretation of semantic annotation. In Proceedings 6th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2008), Marrakech. Paris: ELRA. Google Scholar
  12. Bunt, H., & Palmer, M. (2013). Conceptual and representational choices in defining an ISO standard for semantic role annotation. In Proceedings ninth joint ISO – ACL SIGSEM workshop on interoperable semantic annotation (ISA-9), Potsdam, March 19–20. Google Scholar
  13. Bunt, H., & Pustejovsky, J. (2012). Annotating temporal and event quantification. In Proceedings of ISA-5, 5th international workshop on interoperable semantic annotation, workshop at the second international conference on global interoperability for language resources (ICGL-2), Hong Kong, City University of Hong Kong. Google Scholar
  14. Bunt, H., & Romary, L. (2002). Towards multimodal content representation. In K. S. Choi (Ed.), Proceedings of LREC 2002, workshop on international standards of terminology and language resources management, Las Palmas (pp. 54–60). Paris: ELRA. Google Scholar
  15. Bunt, H., Alexandersson, J., Choe, J.-W., Fang, A., Hasida, K., Lee, K., Petukhova, V., Popescu-Belis, A., Romary, L., Soria, C., & Traum, D. (2010). Towards an ISO standard for dialogue act annotation. In Proceedings of LREC 2010, Malta. Paris: ELDA. Google Scholar
  16. Bunt, H., Alexandersson, J., Choe, J.-W., Fang, A., Hasida, K., Petukhova, V., Popescu-Belis, A., & Traum, D. (2012a). A semantically-based standard for dialogue annotation. In Proceedings of LREC 2012, Istanbul. Paris: ELRA. Google Scholar
  17. Bunt, H., Prasad, R., & Joshi, A. (2012b). First steps toward an ISO standard for the annotation of discourse relations. In Proceedings of ISA-7, seventh joint ISO-ACL SIGSEM workshop on interoperable semantic annotation, workshop at LREC 2012, Istanbul. Paris: ELRA. Google Scholar
  18. Copestake, A., Fllickinger, D., & Sag, I. (1996). Minimal recursion semantics: An introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  19. ISO (2012a). Language resource management – semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – part 1: Time and events. International organisation for standardisation ISO. ISO International Standard 24617-1:2012(E). Google Scholar
  20. ISO (2012b). Language resource management – semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – part 2: Dialogue acts. International organisation for standardisation ISO. ISO International Standard 24617-2:2012(E). Google Scholar
  21. ISO (2012c). Linguistic annotation framework (LAF). International organisation for standardisation ISO. ISO International Standard 24612-2:2012(E). Google Scholar
  22. ISO (2013). Language resource management – semantic annotation framework (SemAF) – part 5: Semantic roles. International organisation for standardisation ISO. ISO Committee Draft, CD 24612-5:2013. Google Scholar
  23. Kamp, H., & Reyle, U. (1993). From discourse to logic. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. Google Scholar
  24. Katz, G. (2007). Towards a denotatial semantics for TimeML. In F. Schilder, G. Katz, & J. Pustejovsky (Eds.), Annotation, extraction, and reasoning about time and events. Dordrecht: Springer. Google Scholar
  25. Lee, K. (2008). Formal semantics for interpreting temporal annotation. In Unity and diversity of languages: Special lectures for the 18th international conference of linguists. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Google Scholar
  26. LIRICS (2006). Project LIRICS deliverable D4.3, Documented compilation of semantic data categories. http://lirics.loria.fr.
  27. Pinkal, M. (1999). On semantic underspecification. In H. Bunt & R. Muskens (Eds.), Computing meaning, vol. 1 (pp. 33–56). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Prasad, R., Dinesh, N., Lee, E., Miltsakaki, E., Robaldo, L., Joshi, A., & Webber, B. (2008). The Penn Discourse Treebank 2.0. In Proceedings of LREC 2008, 6th international conference on language resources and evaluation, Marrakech, Morocco. Google Scholar
  29. Pratt-Hartmann, I. (2007). From TimeML to Interval temporal logic. In Proceedings of the seventh international workshop on computational semantics (IWCS-7), Tilburg, Netherlands (pp. 166–180). Google Scholar
  30. Pustejovsky, J., Castano, J., Ingria, R., Gaizauskas, R., Katz, G., Saurí, R., & Setzer, A. (2003). TimeML: Robust specification of event and temporal expressions in text. In Proceedings of the fifth international workshop on computational semantics (IWCS-5), Tilburg, Netherlands (pp. 337–353). Google Scholar
  31. Pustejovsky, J., Bunt, H., & Lee, K. (2010a). ISO-TimeML. In Proceedings of LREC 2010, Malta. Paris: ELDA. Google Scholar
  32. Pustejovsky, J., Bunt, H., Lee, K., & Romary, L. (2010b). ISO-TimeML: An international standard for semantic annotation. In Proceedings 7th international conference on language resources and evaluation (LREC 2010), Malta. Paris: ELDA. Google Scholar
  33. Pustejovsky, J., Moszkowics, J., & Verhagen, M. (2012). The current status of ISO-space. In Proceedings of ISA-7, seventh joint ISO-ACL SIGSEM workshop on interoperable semantic annotation, workshop at LREC 2012, Istanbul. Paris: ELRA. Google Scholar
  34. Reyle, U. (1993). Dealing with ambiguities by underspecification. Journal of Semantics, 10(2), 123–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. TEI (2009). TEI P5: Guidelines for electronic text encoding and interchange. Oxford: Text Encoding Initiative Consortium. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tilburg Center for Cognition and Communication (TiCC) and Department of PhilosophyTilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations