Document Open Access Logo

Achieving High Quality Knowledge Acquisition using Controlled Natural Language

Author Tiantian Gao

PDF
Thumbnail PDF

File

OASIcs.ICLP.2017.13.pdf
  • Filesize: 417 kB
  • 10 pages

Document Identifiers

Author Details

Tiantian Gao

Cite AsGet BibTex

Tiantian Gao. Achieving High Quality Knowledge Acquisition using Controlled Natural Language. In Technical Communications of the 33rd International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP 2017). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 58, pp. 13:1-13:10, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2018)
https://doi.org/10.4230/OASIcs.ICLP.2017.13

Abstract

Controlled Natural Languages (CNLs) are efficient languages for knowledge acquisition and reasoning. They are designed as a subset of natural languages with restricted grammar while being highly expressive. CNLs are designed to be automatically translated into logical representations, which can be fed into rule engines for query and reasoning. In this work, we build a knowledge acquisition machine, called KAM, that extends Attempto Controlled English (ACE) and achieves three goals. First, KAM can identify CNL sentences that correspond to the same logical representation but expressed in various syntactical forms. Second, KAM provides a graphical user interface (GUI) that allows users to disambiguate the knowledge acquired from text and incorporates user feedback to improve knowledge acquisition quality. Third, KAM uses a paraconsistent logical framework to encode CNL sentences in order to achieve reasoning in the presence of inconsistent knowledge.
Keywords
  • Logic Programming
  • Controlled Natural Languages
  • Knowledge Acquisition

Metrics

  • Access Statistics
  • Total Accesses (updated on a weekly basis)
    0
    PDF Downloads
    0
    Metadata Views

References

  1. Sören Auer, Christian Bizer, Georgi Kobilarov, Jens Lehmann, Richard Cyganiak, and Zachary G. Ives. Dbpedia: A nucleus for a web of open data. In Karl Aberer, Key-Sun Choi, Natasha Fridman Noy, Dean Allemang, Kyung-Il Lee, Lyndon J. B. Nixon, Jennifer Golbeck, Peter Mika, Diana Maynard, Riichiro Mizoguchi, Guus Schreiber, and Philippe Cudré-Mauroux, editors, The Semantic Web, 6th International Semantic Web Conference, 2nd Asian Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2007 + ASWC 2007, Busan, Korea, November 11-15, 2007., volume 4825 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 722-735. Springer, 2007. Google Scholar
  2. Satanjeev Banerjee and Ted Pedersen. An adapted lesk algorithm for word sense disambiguation using wordnet. In Alexander F. Gelbukh, editor, Computational Linguistics and Intelligent Text Processing, Third International Conference, CICLing 2002, Mexico City, Mexico, February 17-23, 2002, Proceedings, volume 2276 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 136-145. Springer, 2002. Google Scholar
  3. José Camacho-Collados, Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, and Roberto Navigli. Nasari: Integrating explicit knowledge and corpus statistics for a multilingual representation of concepts and entities. Artif. Intell., 240:36-64, 2016. Google Scholar
  4. Dipanjan Das, Desai Chen, André F. T. Martins, Nathan Schneider, and Noah A. Smith. Frame-semantic parsing. Computational Linguistics, 40(1):9-56, 2014. Google Scholar
  5. Broes de Cat, Bart Bogaerts, Maurice Bruynooghe, and Marc Denecker. Predicate logic as a modelling language: The IDP system. CoRR, abs/1401.6312, 2014. URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6312.
  6. Esra Erdem, Halit Erdogan, and Umut Öztok. BIOQUERY-ASP: querying biomedical ontologies using answer set programming. In Stefano Bragaglia, Carlos Viegas Damásio, Marco Montali, Alun D. Preece, Charles J. Petrie, Mark Proctor, and Umberto Straccia, editors, Proceedings of the 5th International RuleML2011@BRF Challenge, co-located with the 5th International Rule Symposium, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, USA, November 3-5, 2011, volume 799 of CEUR Workshop Proceedings. CEUR-WS.org, 2011. Google Scholar
  7. Norbert E. Fuchs, Kaarel Kaljurand, and Tobias Kuhn. Attempto controlled english for knowledge representation. In Cristina Baroglio, Piero A. Bonatti, Jan Maluszynski, Massimo Marchiori, Axel Polleres, and Sebastian Schaffert, editors, Reasoning Web, 4th International Summer School 2008, Venice, Italy, September 7-11, 2008, Tutorial Lectures, volume 5224 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 104-124. Springer, 2008. Google Scholar
  8. Tiantian Gao, Paul Fodor, and Michael Kifer. Paraconsistency and word puzzles. TPLP, 16(5-6):703-720, 2016. Google Scholar
  9. M. Gebser, R. Kaminski, B. Kaufmann, and T. Schaub. Clingo = ASP + control: Preliminary report. In M. Leuschel and T. Schrijvers, editors, Technical Communications of the Thirtieth International Conference on Logic Programming (ICLP'14), volume arXiv:1405.3694v1, 2014. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming, Online Supplement. Google Scholar
  10. Graeme Hirst, David St-Onge, et al. Lexical chains as representations of context for the detection and correction of malapropisms. WordNet: An electronic lexical database, 305:305-332, 1998. Google Scholar
  11. Jay J. Jiang and David W. Conrath. Semantic similarity based on corpus statistics and lexical taxonomy. CoRR, cmp-lg/9709008, 1997. Google Scholar
  12. Richard Johansson and Pierre Nugues. Lth: Semantic structure extraction using nonprojective dependency trees. In Proceedings of the 4th International Workshop on Semantic Evaluations, SemEval '07, pages 227-230, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2007. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  13. Chrstopher R. Johnson, Charles J. Fillmore, Miriam R.L. Petruck, Collin F. Baker, Michael J. Ellsworth, Josef Ruppenhofer, and Esther J. Wood. FrameNet: Theory and Practice, 2002. Google Scholar
  14. Paul Kingsbury and Martha Palmer. Propbank: the next level of treebank. In Proceedings of Treebanks and lexical Theories, volume 3. Citeseer, 2003. Google Scholar
  15. Claudia Leacock and Martin Chodorow. Combining local context and wordnet similarity for word sense identification. WordNet: An electronic lexical database, 49(2):265-283, 1998. Google Scholar
  16. John Lehmann, Sean Monahan, Luke Nezda, Arnold Jung, and Ying Shi. LCC approaches to knowledge base population at TAC 2010. In Proceedings of the Third Text Analysis Conference, TAC 2010, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA, November 15-16, 2010. NIST, 2010. Google Scholar
  17. Dekang Lin. An information-theoretic definition of similarity. In Jude W. Shavlik, editor, Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML 1998), Madison, Wisconsin, USA, July 24-27, 1998, pages 296-304. Morgan Kaufmann, 1998. Google Scholar
  18. Mausam, Michael Schmitz, Stephen Soderland, Robert Bart, and Oren Etzioni. Open language learning for information extraction. In Jun'ichi Tsujii, James Henderson, and Marius Pasca, editors, Proceedings of the 2012 Joint Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing and Computational Natural Language Learning, EMNLP-CoNLL 2012, July 12-14, 2012, Jeju Island, Korea, pages 523-534. ACL, 2012. Google Scholar
  19. George A. Miller. Wordnet: A lexical database for english. Commun. ACM, 38(11):39-41, 1995. Google Scholar
  20. Mohammad Taher Pilehvar, David Jurgens, and Roberto Navigli. Align, disambiguate and walk: A unified approach for measuring semantic similarity. In Proceedings of the 51st Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, ACL 2013, 4-9 August 2013, Sofia, Bulgaria, Volume 1: Long Papers, pages 1341-1351. The Association for Computer Linguistics, 2013. Google Scholar
  21. Philip Resnik. Using information content to evaluate semantic similarity in a taxonomy. arXiv preprint cmp-lg/9511007, 1995. Google Scholar
  22. Konstantinos Sagonas, Terrance Swift, and David S. Warren. Xsb as an efficient deductive database engine. In In Proceedings of the ACM SIGMOD International Conference on the Management of Data, pages 442-453. ACM Press, 1994. Google Scholar
  23. Karin Kipper Schuler. Verbnet: A Broad-coverage, Comprehensive Verb Lexicon. PhD thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2005. AAI3179808. Google Scholar
  24. Rolf Schwitter. English as a formal specification language. In 13th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (DEXA 2002), 2-6 September 2002, Aix-en-Provence, France, pages 228-232. IEEE Computer Society, 2002. Google Scholar
  25. Fabian M Suchanek, Gjergji Kasneci, and Gerhard Weikum. Yago: a core of semantic knowledge. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on World Wide Web, pages 697-706. ACM, 2007. Google Scholar
  26. Mihai Surdeanu, David McClosky, Mason R. Smith, Andrey Gusev, and Christopher D. Manning. Customizing an information extraction system to a new domain. In Proceedings of the ACL 2011 Workshop on Relational Models of Semantics, RELMS '11, pages 2-10, Stroudsburg, PA, USA, 2011. Association for Computational Linguistics. Google Scholar
  27. Denny Vrandečić and Markus Krötzsch. Wikidata: a free collaborative knowledgebase. Communications of the ACM, 57(10):78-85, 2014. Google Scholar
  28. Zhibiao Wu and Martha Stone Palmer. Verb semantics and lexical selection. In James Pustejovsky, editor, 32nd Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, 27-30 June 1994, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA, Proceedings., pages 133-138. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers / ACL, 1994. Google Scholar
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact