Framester: A Wide Coverage Linguistic Linked Data Hub

  • Aldo Gangemi
  • Mehwish Alam
  • Luigi Asprino
  • Valentina Presutti
  • Diego Reforgiato Recupero
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10024)


Semantic web applications leveraging NLP can benefit from easy access to expressive lexical resources such as FrameNet. However, the usefulness of FrameNet is affected by its limited coverage and non-standard semantics. The access to existing linguistic resources is also limited because of poor connectivity among them. We present some strategies based on Linguistic Linked Data to broaden FrameNet coverage and formal linkage of lexical and factual resources. We created a novel resource, Framester, which acts as a hub between FrameNet, WordNet, VerbNet, BabelNet, DBpedia, Yago, DOLCE-Zero, as well as other resources. Framester is not only a strongly connected knowledge graph, but also applies a rigorous formal treatment for Fillmore’s frame semantics, enabling full-fledged OWL querying and reasoning on a large frame-based knowledge graph. We also describe Word Frame Disambiguation, an application that reuses Framester data as a base in order to perform frame detection from text, with results comparable in precision to the state of the art, but with a much higher coverage.


Frame detection Framester FrameNet Framenet coverage Knowledge graphs Frame semantics Linguistic linked data 



The research leading to these results has received funding from the EFL (Empirical Foundations of Linguistics) LabEx and European Union Horizons 2020 the Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (2014–2020) under grant agreement 643808 Project MARIO Managing active and healthy aging with use of caring service robots.


  1. 1.
    Agirre, E., Soroa, A.: Personalizing pagerank for word sense disambiguation. In: Lascarides, A., Gardent, C., Nivre, J., (eds.) EACL 2009, Proceedings of the 12th Conference of the European Chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Athens, Greece, March 30–April 3, 2009, pp. 33–41. The Association for Computer Linguistics (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baker, C.F., Fillmore, C.J., Lowe, J.B.: The Berkeley FrameNet project. In: Boitet, C., Whitelock, P., (eds.), Proceedings of the 36th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and 17th International Conference on Computational Linguistics, COLING-ACL 1998, August 10–14, 1998, Université de Montréal, Montréal, Quebec, Canada, pp. 86–90. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers/ACL (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burchardt, A., Erk, K., Frank, A.: A WordNet detour to FrameNet. In: Proceedings of the GLDV 2005 Workshop GermaNet II, Bonn (2005)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Das, D., Chen, D., Martins, A.F.T., Schneider, N., Smith, N.A.: Frame-semantic parsing. Comput. Linguist. 40(1), 9–56 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lopez, M., de Lacalle, E., Laparra, G.R., Matrix, P.: Extending SemLink through WordNet mappings. In: Proceedings of the Ninth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC-2014), Reykjavik, Iceland, 26–31 May 2014, pp. 903–909 (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Etzioni, O., Fader, A., Christensen, J., Soderland, S., Mausam, M.: Open information extraction: the second generation. In: IJCAI, pp. 3–10. IJCAI/AAAI. (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fellbaum, C.: WordNet: An Electronic Lexical Database. MIT Press, Cambridge (1998)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fillmore, C.J.: Frame semantics and the nature of language. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 280(1), 20–32 (1976)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gangemi, A.: Norms and plans as unification criteria for social collectives. J. Auton. Agents Multi-Agent Syst. 16(3), 70–112 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gangemi, A.: What’s in a Schema?. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gangemi, A., Mika, P.: Understanding the semantic web through descriptions and situations. In: Meersman et al. [20], pp. 689–706Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gangemi, A., Navigli, R., Velardi, P.: The ontowordnet project: extension and axiomatization of conceptual relations in wordnet. In: Meersman et al. [20], pp. 820–838Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gangemi, A., Presutti, V., Reforgiato Recupero, D., Nuzzolese, A.G., Draicchio, F., Mongiovi, M.: Semantic web machine reading with FRED, Sermant. Web (2016)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gangemi, A., Recupero, D.R., Mongiovì, M., Nuzzolese, A.G., Presutti, V.: Identifying motifs for evaluating open knowledge extraction on the web. Knowl. Based Syst. 108, 33–41 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gardner, M., Talukdar, P.P., Kisiel, B., Mitchell, T.: Improving learning and inference in a large knowledge-base using latent syntactic cues. In: Proceedings of the EMNL 2013 (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gliozzo, A., Biran, O., Patwardhan, S., McKeown, K.: Semantic technologies in IBM Watson. ACL 2013, 85 (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hellmann, S., Lehmann, J., Auer, S.: Linked-data aware URI schemes for referencing text fragments. In: Teije, A., Völker, J., Handschuh, S., Stuckenschmidt, H., d’Acquin, M., Nikolov, A., Aussenac-Gilles, N., Hernandez, N. (eds.) EKAW 2012. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7603, pp. 175–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-33876-2_17 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kingsbury, P., Palmer, M.: From TreeBank to PropBank. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC, pp. 29–31, 2002, Las Palmas, Canary Islands, Spain. European Language Resources Association, May 2002Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kipper, K., Dang, H.T., Palmer, M.S.: Class-based construction of a verb Lexicon. In: Kautz, H.A., Porter, B.W. (eds.), Proceedings of the Seventeenth National Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Twelfth Conference on on Innovative Applications of Artificial Intelligence, July 30 - August 3, 2000, Austin, Texas, USA, pp. 691–696. AAAI Press/The MIT Press (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Meersman, R., Tari, Z., Schmidt, D.C.: On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems 2003: CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE - OTM Confederated International Conferences CoopIS, DOA, and ODBASE, 3–7 November 2003. LNCS, vol. 2888. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moro, A., Raganato, A., Navigli, R.: Entity linking meets word sense disambiguation: a unified approach. Trans. Assoc. Comput. Linguist. (TACL) 2, 231–244 (2014)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Narayanan, S., Fillmore, C.J., Baker, C.F., Petruck, M.R.L.: Framenet meets the semantic web: A DAML+ OIL frame representation. Technology, p. 2000 (2003)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Navigli, R., Paolo PonAzetto, S.: BabelNet: the automatic construction, evaluation and application of a wide-coverage multilingual semantic network. Artif. Intell. 193, 217–250 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Nuzzolese, A.G., Gangemi, A., Presutti, V.: Gathering lexical linked data and knowledge patterns from FrameNet. In: Musen, M.A., Corcho, Ó. (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Knowledge Capture (K-CAP 2011), 26–29 June 2011, Banff, Alberta, Canada, pp. 41–48. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Oliver, A., Smiley, T.: Multigrade predicates. Mind 113(452), 609–681 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Palmer, M., Semlink: Linking PropBank, VerbNet and FrameNet. In: Proceedings of the Generative Lexicon Conference, Pisa, Italy, GenLex-09 (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rizzo, G., Troncy, R., Hellmann, S., Bruemmer, M.: NERD meets NIF: Lifting NLP extraction results to the linked data cloud. In: LDOW, 5th Workshop on Linked Data on the Web, Lyon, France, 04 2012Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rouces, J., de Melo, G., Hose, K.: FrameBase: representing N-Ary relations using semantic frames. In: Gandon, F., Sabou, M., Sack, H., d’Amato, C., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Zimmermann, A. (eds.) ESWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9088, pp. 505–521. Springer, Heidelberg (2015). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-18818-8_31 Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schuler, K.K.: Verbnet: a broad-coverage, comprehensive verb Lexicon. Ph.D. thesis, Philadelphia, PA, USA (2005). AAI3179808Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Van Assem, M., Gangemi, A., Schreiber, G.: Conversion of WordNet to a standard RDF/OWL representation. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2006, Genoa, Italy, pp. 237–242 (2006)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    van Assem, M., Gangemi, A., Schreiber, G.: RDF/OWL representation of WordNet. World Wide Web Consortium, Working Draft WD-wordnet-rdf-20060619, June 2006Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Aldo Gangemi
    • 1
  • Mehwish Alam
    • 1
  • Luigi Asprino
    • 2
  • Valentina Presutti
    • 2
  • Diego Reforgiato Recupero
    • 3
  1. 1.Universite Paris 13ParisFrance
  2. 2.National Research Council (CNR)RomeItaly
  3. 3.University of CagliariCagliariItaly

Personalised recommendations