Advertisement

A Model for Verbalising Relations with Roles in Multiple Languages

  • C. Maria Keet
  • Takunda Chirema
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10024)

Abstract

Natural language renderings of ontologies facilitate communication with domain experts. While for ontologies with terms in English this is fairly straightforward, it is problematic for grammatically richer languages due to conjugation of verbs, an article that may be dependent on the preposition, or a preposition that modifies the noun. There is no systematic way to deal with such ‘complex’ names of OWL object properties, or their verbalisation with existing language models for annotating ontologies. The modifications occur only when the object performs some role in a relation, so we propose a conceptual model that can handle this. This requires reconciling the standard view with relational expressions to a positionalist view, which is included in the model and in the formalisation of the mapping between the two. This eases verbalisation and it allows for a more precise representation of the knowledge, yet is still compatible with existing technologies. We have implemented it as a Protégé plugin and validated its adequacy with several languages that need it, such as German and isiZulu.

Keywords

Language Model Description Logic Object Property Standard View Natural Language Generation 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work is based on research supported by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Number 93397).

References

  1. 1.
    Androutsopoulos, I., Lampouras, G., Galanis, D.: Generating natural language descriptions from OWL ontologies: the NaturalOWL system. JAIR 48, 671–715 (2013)MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baldwin, T., Kordoni, V., Villavicencio, A.: Prepositions in applications: a survey and introduction to the special issue. Comput. Linguist. 35(2), 119–149 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bosca, A., Dragoni, M., Francescomarino, C.D., Ghidini, C.: Collaborative management of multilingual ontologies. In: Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P. (eds.) Towards the Multilingual Semantic Web, pp. 175–192. Springer, Berlin (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bouayad-Agha, N., Casamayor, G., Wanner, L.: Natural language generation in the context of the semantic web. Semant. Web J. 5(6), 493–513 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Haase, P., Sintek, M.: Towards linguistically grounded ontologies. In: Aroyo, L., et al. (eds.) ESWC 2009. LNCS, vol. 5554, pp. 111–125. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Byamugisha, J., Keet, C.M., DeRenzi, B.: Bootstrapping a Runyankore CNL from an isiZulu CNL. In: Davis, B., Pace, G., Wyner, A., Pace, G.J., Pace, G.J., Pace, G.J., Pace, G.J. (eds.) CNL 2016. LNCS, vol. 9767, pp. 25–36. Springer, Heidelberg (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-41498-0_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G.: Expressive description logics. In: The DL Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications, pp. 178–218. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Calvanese, D., De Giacomo, G., Lenzerini, M., Nardi, D., Rosati, R.: Description logic framework for information integration. In: Proceedings of of KR 1998, pp. 2–13 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Chavula, C., Keet, C.M.: Is lemon sufficient for building multilingual ontologies for Bantu languages? In: Proceedings of OWLED 2014, CEUR-WS, vol. 1265, pp. 61–72, riva del Garda, Italy, 17–18 October 2014Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Davis, B., Enache, R., van Grondelle, J., Pretorius, L.: Multilingual verbalisation of modular ontologies using GF and lemon. In: Kuhn, T., Fuchs, N.E. (eds.) CNL 2012. LNCS, vol. 7427, pp. 167–184. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Denaux, R., Dimitrova, V., Cohn, A.G., Dolbear, C., Hart, G.: Rabbit to OWL: ontology authoring with a CNL-based tool. In: Fuchs, N.E. (ed.) CNL 2009. LNCS, vol. 5972, pp. 246–264. Springer, Heidelberg (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Fillottrani, P.R., Keet, C.M.: Evidence-based languages for conceptual data modelling profiles. In: Morzy, T., Valduriez, P., Ladjel, B. (eds.) ADBIS 2015. LNCS, vol. 9282, pp. 215–229. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fine, K.: Neutral relations. Philos. Rev. 109(1), 1–33 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fuchs, N.E., Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T.: Discourse representation structures for ACE 6.6. Technical report, ifi-2010.0010, Department of Informatics, University of Zurich, Switzerland (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gruzitis, N., Barzdins, G.: Towards a more natural multilingual controlled language interface to OWL. In: Proceedings of IWCS 2011, pp. 335–339. ACL, Stroudsburg (2011)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gruzitis, N., Nespore, G., Saulite, B.: Verbalizing ontologies in controlled Baltic languages. In: 4th International Conference on HLT -“The Baltic Perspective”, FAIA, vol. 219, pp. 187–194. IOS Press (2010)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Halpin, T., Morgan, T.: Information Modeling and Relational Databases, 2nd edn. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2008)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hewlett, D., Kalyanpur, A., Kolovski, V., Halaschek-Wiener, C.: Effective NL paraphrasing of ontologies on the semantic web. In: Proceedings of WS on End-User Semantic Web Interaction, CEUR-WS, vol. 172 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jarrar, M., Keet, C.M., Dongilli, P.: Multilingual verbalization of ORM conceptual models and axiomatized ontologies. Starlab technical report, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium, February 2006Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kaljurand, K., Fuchs, N.E.: Verbalizing OWL in attempto controlled English. In: Proceedings of OWLED 2007, CEUR-WS, vol. 258, Innsbruck, Austria, 6–7 June 2007Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T., Canedo, L.: Collaborative multilingual knowledge management based on controlled natural language. Semant. Web 6(3), 241–258 (2015)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Keet, C.M., Fillottrani, P.R.: An ontology-driven unifying metamodel of UML Class Diagrams, EER, and ORM2. DKE 98, 30–53 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keet, C.M., Khumalo, L.: Toward verbalizing ontologies in isiZulu. In: Davis, B., Kaljurand, K., Kuhn, T. (eds.) CNL 2014. LNCS, vol. 8625, pp. 78–89. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keet, C.M., Khumalo, L.: On the verbalization patterns of part-whole relations in isiZulu. In: Proceedings of INLG 2016, pp. 174–183. ACL, Edinburgh, 5–8 September 2016Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Keet, C.M., Khumalo, L.: Toward a knowledge-to-text controlled natural language of isiZulu. LRE (2016, in print). doi: 10.1007/s10579-016-9340-0
  26. 26.
    Kuhn, T.: A principled approach to grammars for controlled natural languages and predictive editors. J. Logic Lang. Inform. 22(1), 33–70 (2013)CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Leo, J.: Modeling relations. J. Phil. Logic 37, 353–385 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Li, C.N., Thompson, S.A.: Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: verbs or prepositions? J. Chin. Linguist. 2(3), 257–278 (1974)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mathonsi, N.N.: Prepositional and adverb phrases in Zulu: a linguistic adn lexicographic problem. S. Af. J. African Lang. 2, 163–175 (2001)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    McCrae, J., et al.: Interchanging lexical resources on the semantic web. LRE 46(4), 701–719 (2012)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    McCrae, J., et al.: The Lemon cookbook. Technical report, Monnet Project (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax. W3c recommendation, W3C, 27 October 2009. http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
  33. 33.
    de Oliveira, R., Sripada, S.: Adapting simplenlg for brazilian portuguese realisation. In: Proceedings of INLG 2014, pp. 93–94. ACL, Philadelphia, June 2014Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Safwat, H., Davis, B.: CNLs for the semantic web: a state of the art. LRE (2016, in print) doi: 10.1007/s10579-016-9351-x
  35. 35.
    Schneider, N., Srikumar, V., Hwang, J.D., Palmer, M.: A hierarchy with, of, and for preposition supersenses. In: Proceedings of LAW IX - The 9th Linguistic Annotation Workshop, pp. 112–123, Denver, USA, 5 June 2015Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Stevens, R., Malone, J., Williams, S., Power, R., Third, A.: Automating generation of textual class definitions from OWL to English. J. Biomed. Sem. 2(Suppl 2), S5 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Third, A., Williams, S., Power, R.: OWL to English: a tool for generating organised easily-navigated hypertexts from ontologies. In: Poster, Demo Paper at ISWC 2011, Bonn, Germany 23–27 October 2011. Open Unversity, London (2011)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer ScienceUniversity of Cape TownCape TownSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations