Search (6 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × theme_ss:"Computerlinguistik"
  • × theme_ss:"Wissensrepräsentation"
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Rindflesch, T.C.; Fizsman, M.: The interaction of domain knowledge and linguistic structure in natural language processing : interpreting hypernymic propositions in biomedical text (2003) 0.00
    0.0026742492 = product of:
      0.0053484985 = sum of:
        0.0053484985 = product of:
          0.010696997 = sum of:
            0.010696997 = weight(_text_:a in 2097) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.010696997 = score(doc=2097,freq=20.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.20142901 = fieldWeight in 2097, product of:
                  4.472136 = tf(freq=20.0), with freq of:
                    20.0 = termFreq=20.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=2097)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Interpretation of semantic propositions in free-text documents such as MEDLINE citations would provide valuable support for biomedical applications, and several approaches to semantic interpretation are being pursued in the biomedical informatics community. In this paper, we describe a methodology for interpreting linguistic structures that encode hypernymic propositions, in which a more specific concept is in a taxonomic relationship with a more general concept. In order to effectively process these constructions, we exploit underspecified syntactic analysis and structured domain knowledge from the Unified Medical Language System (UMLS). After introducing the syntactic processing on which our system depends, we focus on the UMLS knowledge that supports interpretation of hypernymic propositions. We first use semantic groups from the Semantic Network to ensure that the two concepts involved are compatible; hierarchical information in the Metathesaurus then determines which concept is more general and which more specific. A preliminary evaluation of a sample based on the semantic group Chemicals and Drugs provides 83% precision. An error analysis was conducted and potential solutions to the problems encountered are presented. The research discussed here serves as a paradigm for investigating the interaction between domain knowledge and linguistic structure in natural language processing, and could also make a contribution to research on automatic processing of discourse structure. Additional implications of the system we present include its integration in advanced semantic interpretation processors for biomedical text and its use for information extraction in specific domains. The approach has the potential to support a range of applications, including information retrieval and ontology engineering.
    Type
    a
  2. Griffiths, T.L.; Steyvers, M.: ¬A probabilistic approach to semantic representation (2002) 0.00
    0.0023435948 = product of:
      0.0046871896 = sum of:
        0.0046871896 = product of:
          0.009374379 = sum of:
            0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 3671) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009374379 = score(doc=3671,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3671, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3671)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Semantic networks produced from human data have statistical properties that cannot be easily captured by spatial representations. We explore a probabilistic approach to semantic representation that explicitly models the probability with which words occurin diffrent contexts, and hence captures the probabilistic relationships between words. We show that this representation has statistical properties consistent with the large-scale structure of semantic networks constructed by humans, and trace the origins of these properties.
    Type
    a
  3. Nielsen, R.D.; Ward, W.; Martin, J.H.; Palmer, M.: Extracting a representation from text for semantic analysis (2008) 0.00
    0.0023435948 = product of:
      0.0046871896 = sum of:
        0.0046871896 = product of:
          0.009374379 = sum of:
            0.009374379 = weight(_text_:a in 3365) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.009374379 = score(doc=3365,freq=6.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.17652355 = fieldWeight in 3365, product of:
                  2.4494898 = tf(freq=6.0), with freq of:
                    6.0 = termFreq=6.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=3365)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    We present a novel fine-grained semantic representation of text and an approach to constructing it. This representation is largely extractable by today's technologies and facilitates more detailed semantic analysis. We discuss the requirements driving the representation, suggest how it might be of value in the automated tutoring domain, and provide evidence of its validity.
    Type
    a
  4. Cimiano, P.; Völker, J.; Studer, R.: Ontologies on demand? : a description of the state-of-the-art, applications, challenges and trends for ontology learning from text (2006) 0.00
    0.0020296127 = product of:
      0.0040592253 = sum of:
        0.0040592253 = product of:
          0.008118451 = sum of:
            0.008118451 = weight(_text_:a in 6014) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.008118451 = score(doc=6014,freq=8.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.15287387 = fieldWeight in 6014, product of:
                  2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                    8.0 = termFreq=8.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046875 = fieldNorm(doc=6014)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Abstract
    Ontologies are nowadays used for many applications requiring data, services and resources in general to be interoperable and machine understandable. Such applications are for example web service discovery and composition, information integration across databases, intelligent search, etc. The general idea is that data and services are semantically described with respect to ontologies, which are formal specifications of a domain of interest, and can thus be shared and reused in a way such that the shared meaning specified by the ontology remains formally the same across different parties and applications. As the cost of creating ontologies is relatively high, different proposals have emerged for learning ontologies from structured and unstructured resources. In this article we examine the maturity of techniques for ontology learning from textual resources, addressing the question whether the state-of-the-art is mature enough to produce ontologies 'on demand'.
    Type
    a
  5. Mustafa El Hadi, W.: Terminologies, ontologies and information access (2006) 0.00
    0.001913537 = product of:
      0.003827074 = sum of:
        0.003827074 = product of:
          0.007654148 = sum of:
            0.007654148 = weight(_text_:a in 1488) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.007654148 = score(doc=1488,freq=4.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.14413087 = fieldWeight in 1488, product of:
                  2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                    4.0 = termFreq=4.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=1488)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Source
    Knowledge organization, information systems and other essays: Professor A. Neelameghan Festschrift. Ed. by K.S. Raghavan and K.N. Prasad
    Type
    a
  6. Kunze, C.: Lexikalisch-semantische Wortnetze in Sprachwissenschaft und Sprachtechnologie (2006) 0.00
    0.001353075 = product of:
      0.00270615 = sum of:
        0.00270615 = product of:
          0.0054123 = sum of:
            0.0054123 = weight(_text_:a in 6023) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
              0.0054123 = score(doc=6023,freq=2.0), product of:
                0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.046056706 = queryNorm
                0.10191591 = fieldWeight in 6023, product of:
                  1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                    2.0 = termFreq=2.0
                  1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
                  0.0625 = fieldNorm(doc=6023)
          0.5 = coord(1/2)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
    
    Type
    a