Representing and Aligning Similar Relations: Parts and Wholes in isiZulu vs. English

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10318)

Abstract

Ontology-enabled medical information systems are used in Sub-Saharan Africa, which require localisation of Semantic Web technologies, such as ontology verbalisation, yet keeping a link with the English language-based systems. In realising this, we zoom in on the part-whole relations that are ubiquitous in medical ontologies, and the isiZulu language. The analysis of part-whole relations in isiZulu revealed both ‘underspecification’—therewith also challenging the transitivity claim—and three refinements cf. the list of common part-whole relations. This was first implemented for the monolingual scenario so that it generates structured natural language from an ontology in isiZulu. Two new natural language-independent correspondence patterns are proposed to solve non-1:1 object property alignments, which are subsequently used to align the part-whole taxonomies informed by the two languages.

References

  1. 1.
    Al Zamil, M.G., Al-Radaideh, Q.: Automatic extraction of ontological relations from Arabic text. J. King Saud Univ. Comput. Inf. Sci. 26(4), 462–472 (2014). Special issue on Arabic NLPGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barbier, F., Henderson-Sellers, B., Le Parc-Lacayrelle, A., Bruel, J.M.: Formalization of the whole-part relationship in the Unified Modelling Language. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 29(5), 459–470 (2003)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, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-02121-3_12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cao, X., Cao, C., Wang, S., Lu, H.: Extracting part-whole relations from unstructured Chinese corpus. In: Proceedings of FSKD 2008. IEEE Xplore (2008)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chiarcos, C., Sukhareva, M.: OLiA - Ontologies of Linguistic Annotation. Semant. Web J. 6(4), 379–386 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fillottrani, P.R., Keet, C.M.: Patterns for heterogeneous TBox mappings to bridge different modelling decisions. In: Blomqvist, E., et al. (ed.) Proceedings of ESWC 2017. LNCS, vol. 10249. Springer, Heidelberg (2017, in press)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fiorelli, M., Stellato, A., McCrae, J.P., Cimiano, P., Pazienza, M.T.: LIME: the metadata module for OntoLex. In: Gandon, F., Sabou, M., Sack, H., d’Amato, C., Cudré-Mauroux, P., Zimmermann, A. (eds.) ESWC 2015. LNCS, vol. 9088, pp. 321–336. Springer, Cham (2015). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-18818-8_20
  9. 9.
    Frescura, F., Myeza, J.: Illustrated Glossary of Southern African Architectural Terms. UKZN Press, Bilingual Glossary Series (2016)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Guizzardi, G.: Ontological foundations for structural conceptual models. Ph.D. thesis, University of Twente, The Netherlands. Telematica Instituut Fundamental Research Series No. 15 (2005)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Johansson, I.: On the transitivity of the parthood relation. In: Mulligan, K. (ed.) Relations and Predicates, pp. 161–181. Ontos Verlag, Frankfurt (2004)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Keet, C.M., Chirema, T.: A model for verbalising relations with roles in multiple languages. In: Blomqvist, E., Ciancarini, P., Poggi, F., Vitali, F. (eds.) EKAW 2016. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 10024, pp. 384–399. Springer, Cham (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-49004-5_25 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Keet, C.M., Artale, A.: Representing and reasoning over a taxonomy of part-whole relations. Appl. Ontol. 3(1–2), 91–110 (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Keet, C.M., Khumalo, L.: On the verbalization patterns of part-whole relations in isiZulu. In: Proceedings of INLG 2016, pp. 174–183, 5–8 September 2016. ACL, Edinburgh (2016)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lamy, J.: Ontology-oriented programming for biomedical informatics. Stud. Health Technol. Inf. 221, 64–68 (2016)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Masolo, C., Borgo, S., Gangemi, A., Guarino, N., Oltramari, A.: Ontology library. WonderWeb Deliverable D18, ver. 1.0, 31 December 2003 (2003). http://wonderweb.semanticweb.org
  17. 17.
    McCrae, J., Aguado-de Cea, G., Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., Gómez-Pérez, A., Gracia, J., Hollink, L., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Spohr, D., Wunner, T.: Interchanging lexical resources on the semantic web. Lang. Resour. Eval. 46(4), 701–719 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McCrae, J., Aguado-de-Cea, G., Buitelaar, P., Cimiano, P., Declerck, T., Gómez-Pérez, A., Gracia, J., Hollink, L., Montiel-Ponsoda, E., Spohr, D., Wunner, T.: The Lemon Cookbook. Technical report, Monnet Project (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Motik, B., Patel-Schneider, P.F., Parsia, B.: OWL 2 web ontology language structural specification and functional-style syntax. W3c recommendation, W3C (27 Oct 2009). http://www.w3.org/TR/owl2-syntax/
  20. 20.
    Motschnig-Pitrik, R., Kaasboll, J.: Part-whole relationship categories and their application in object-oriented analysis. IEEE Trans. Knowl. Data Eng. 11(5), 779–797 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rosse, C., Mejino Jr., J.L.V.: A reference ontology for biomedical informatics: the foundational model of anatomy. J. Biomed. Inf. 36(6), 478–500 (2003)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Scharffe, F., Fensel, D.: Correspondence patterns for ontology alignment. In: Gangemi, A., Euzenat, J. (eds.) EKAW 2008. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 5268, pp. 83–92. Springer, Heidelberg (2008). doi:10.1007/978-3-540-87696-0_10 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scharffe, F., Zamazal, O., Fensel, D.: Ontology alignment design patterns. Knowl. Inf. Syst. 40, 1–28 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Searle, J.R.: Collective intentions and actions. In: Cohen, P., Morgan, J., Pollak, M. (eds.) Intentions in Communication, pp. 401–415. MIT Press, Cambridge (1990)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Snomed, C.T.: http://www.ihtsdo.org/snomed-ct/. Accessed 27 Jan 2012
  26. 26.
    Tandon, N., Hariman, C., Urbani, J., Rohrbach, A., Rohrbach, M., Weikum, G.: Commonsense in parts: mining part-whole relations from the web and image tags. In: Proceedings of AAAI 2016, pp. 243–250. AAAI Press (2016)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Varzi, A.C.: Mereology. In: Zalta, E.N. (ed.) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford, fall 2004 edn (2004). http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2004/entries/mereology/
  28. 28.
    Varzi, A.C.: A note on the transitivity of parthood. Appl. Ontol. 1, 141–146 (2006)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vieu, L., Aurnague, M.: Part-of relations, functionality and dependence. In: Aurnague, M., Hickmann, M., Vieu, L. (eds.) Categorization of Spatial Entities in Language and Cognition. John Benjamins, Amsterdam (2005)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wilcox, L., Morris, D., Tan, D., Gatewood, J., Horvitz, E.: Characterising patient-friendly micro-explanations of medical events. In: Proceedings of CHI 2011, pp. 29–32. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Winston, M., Chaffin, R., Herrmann, D.: A taxonomy of partwhole relations. Cogn. Sci. 11(4), 417–444 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yıldız, T., Diri, B., Yıldırım, S.: Acquisition of Turkish meronym based on classification of patterns. Pattern Anal. Appl. 19(2), 495–507 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations