MEANING: a Roadmap to Knowledge Technologies ... - CiteSeerX

present in the web as the others. Usingthis approach it is possible to balance bothgaps.Although the technology to providecompatibility across wordnets exits(Daudé et al, 1999, 2000, 2001), newresearch is needed for porting anduploading the various types of knowledgeacross languages, and new ways to test thevalidity of the ported knowledge in thetarget languages.3. The MEANING RoadmapThe improvements mentioned above havebeen explored separately with relativesuccess. In fact, no research group inisolation has tried to combine all thisaforementioned factors. We designed theMEANING project 3 convinced that only acombination of all relevant knowledgeand resources will be able to producesignificant advances in this crucialresearch area.MEANING will treat the web as a (huge)corpus to learn information from, sinceeven the largest conventional corporaavailable (e.g. the Reuters corpus, theBritish National Corpus) are not largeenough to be able to acquire reliableinformation in sufficient detail aboutlanguage behaviour. Moreover, mostlanguages do not have large or diverseenough corpora available.MEANING proposes an innovativebootstrapping process to deal with theinter-dependency between WSD andknowledge acquisition:populate it with domain labels, toinduce automatically trainingexamples) with ML techniques thatcombine very large amounts of labeledand unlabeled data. When ready, usealso the knowledge acquired in 2.2. Use the obtained accurate WSD data inconjunction with shallow parsingtechniques and domain tagging toextract new linguistic knowledge toincorporate into EuroWordNet.This method will be able to break thisinterdependency in a series of cycles thanksto the fact that the WSD system will bebased on all domain information,sophisticated linguistic knowledge, largenumbers of automatically tagged examplesfrom the web, and a combination ofannotated and unannotated data. The firstWSD system will have weaker linguisticknowledge, but the sole combination of therest of the factors will produce significantperformance gains. Besides, some of therequired linguistic knowledge can beacquired from unnanotated data, and cantherefore be acquired without using anyWSD system. Once acceptable WSD isavailable, the acquired knowledge will beof a higher quality, and will allow for betterWSD performance.Multilingualism will be also helpful forMEANING. The idiosyncratic way themeaning is realised in a particular languagewill be captured and ported to the rest oflanguages involved in the project 4 usingEuroWordNet as a Multilingual CentralRepository in three consecutive phases (seefigure 1).1. Train accurate WSD systems andapply them to very large corpora bycoupling knowledge-based techniqueson the existing EuroWordNet (e.g. to3Started in March 2002, MEANING IST-2001-34460 "Developing Multilingual Web-scaleLanguage Technologies" is a three years researchproject funded by the EC.4 MEANING will work with three major Europeanlanguages (English, Spanish and Italian) and twominority languages (Catalan and Basque).

(QJOLVK:HE&RUSXV:6':6',WDOLDQ:HE&RUSXV$&4(QJOLVK(:183/2$'83/2$',WDOLDQ(:1$&4325732570XOWLOLQJXDO&HQWUDO5HSRVLWRU\32573257$&46SDQLVK(:183/2$'83/2$'%DVTXH(:1$&46SDQLVK:HE&RUSXV&DWDODQ(:1:6'%DVTXH:HE&RUSXV&DWDODQ:HE&RUSXV:6'4 ConclusionsWhere the acquisition of knowledge fromlarge-scale document collections will beone of the major challenge for the nextgeneration of text processing applications,MEANING emphasises multilingualcontent-based access to web content.Moreover, it can provide a keystoneenabling technologies for the semanticweb. In particular, the MultilingualCentral Repository produced byMEANING is going to constitute thenatural knowledge resource for a numberof semantic processes that need largeamounts of linguistic data to be effectivetools (e.g. web ontologies). NLP tools andsoftware of the next generation willbenefit from the MEANING outcomes.Current web access applications are basedon words; MEANING will open the wayfor access to the multilingual web basedon concepts, providing applications withcapabilities that significantly exceed thosecurrently available. MEANING willFigure 1: MEANING data flow.facilitate development of concept-basedopen domain Internet applications (such asQuestion/Answering, Cross LingualInformation Retrieval, Summarisation, TextCategorisation, Event Tracking,Information Extraction, MachineTranslation, etc.). Furthermore, MEANINGwill supply a common conceptual structureto Internet documents, thus facilitatingknowledge management of web content.This common conceptual structure is adecisive enabling technology for allowingthe semantic web.ReferencesAgirre E. and Martínez D. Exploring automaticword sense disambiguation with decision listsand the Web. Proceedings of the Workshop“Semantic Annotation And IntelligentAnnotation” organized by COLING 2000.Luxembourg. 2000.Agirre E. and Martinez D. Learning class-to-classselectional preferences. Proceedings of theWorkshop "Computational Natural LanguageLearning" (CoNLL-2001). In conjunction withACL'2001/EACL'2001. Toulouse. 2001.Agirre E., Ansa O., Martínez D. and Hovy E.Enriching WordNet concepts with topic

signatures. Proceedings of the NAACLworkshop on WordNet and Other lexicalResources: Applications, Extensions andCustomizations. Pittsburg. 2001.Agirre E. and Martinez D. Integrating selectionalpreferences in WordNet. Proceedings of thefirst International WordNet Conference.Mysore, India, 2002.Blum A. and Mitchel T. Combining labelled andunlabeled data with co-training. InProceedings of the 11 th Annual Conference onComputational Learning Theory. 1998.Carroll, J. and McCarthy, D. Word sensedisambiguation using automatically acquiredverbal preferences. Computers and theHumanities. Senseval Special Issue, Vol. 34,No 1-2. 2000.Daudé J., Padró L. and Rigau G., MappingMultilingual Hierarchies using RelaxationLabelling, Joint SIGDAT Conference onEmpirical Methods in Natural LanguageProcessing and Very Large Corpora(EMNLP/VLC'99). Maryland, 1999.Daudé J., Padró L. and Rigau G., MappingWordNets Using Structural Information , 38thAnual Meeting of the ACL. Hong Kong, 2000.Daudé J., Padró L. and Rigau G., A CompleteWN1.5 to WN1.6 Mapping, Proceedings ofNAACL Workshop "WordNet and OtherLexical Resources: Applications, Extensionsand Customizations". Pittsburg, PA, 2001.Escudero G., Màrquez L. and Rigau G., BoostingApplied to Word Sense Disambiguation.Proceedings of the 11th European Conferenceon Machine Learning. Barcelona. 2000.Escudero G., Màrquez L. and Rigau G., NaiveBayes and Exemplar-Based approaches toWord Sense Disambiguation Revisited.Proceedings of the 14th European Conferenceon Artificial Intelligence, Berlin. 2000.Escudero G., Màrquez L. and Rigau G., AComparison between Supervised LearningAlgorithms for Word Sense Disambiguation.Proceedings of Fourth Computational NaturalLanguage Learning Workshop. Lisbon. 2000.Escudero G., Màrquez L. and Rigau G., AnEmpirical Study of the Domain Dependence ofSupervised Word Sense DisambiguationSystems. Proceedings of Joint SIGDATConference on Empirical Methods in NaturalLanguage Processing and Very Large Corpora.Hong Kong. 2000.Escudero G., Màrquez L. and Rigau G., UsingLazyBoosting for Word Sense Disambiguation.Proceedings of 2 nd International Workshop“Evaluating Word Sense DisambiguationSystems”, SENSEVAL-2. Toulouse. 2001.Fellbaum C. editor. WordNet An ElectronicLexical Database. The MIT Press. 1998.Ide, N. and Vèronis, J. Introduction to the specialissue on word sense disambiguation: The state ofthe art. Computational Linguistics, 24 (1), 1998.Korhonen A., Gorrell, G. and McCarthy D.Statistical Filtering and SubcategorizationFrame Acquisition. In Proceedings of the JointSIGDAT Conference on Empirical Methods inNatural Language Processing and Very LargeCorpora. Hong Kong. 2000.Leacock, C. Chodorow, M. and Miller, G.A. UsingCorpus Statistics and WordNet Relations forSense Identication, Computational Linguistics,24(1), 1998.Magnini B. and Cavaglià G., Integrating subjectfield codes into WordNet. In Proceedings of the2 nd International Conference on LanguageResources and Evaluation, Athens. 2000.Martínez D. and Agirre E. One Sense perCollocation and Genre/Topic Variations.Proceedings of the Joint SIGDAT Conference onEmpirical Methods in Natural LanguageProcessing and Very Large Corpora. Hong Kong,2000.McCarthy, D. and Korhonen, A. Detecting verbalparticipation in diathesis alternations.Proceedings of the 17th International Conferenceon Computational Linguistics and 36th AnnualMeeting of the Association for ComputationalLinguistics COLING-ACL'98. Montreal. 1998.McCarthy D., Lexical Acquisition at the Syntax-Semantics Interface: Diathesis Aternations,Subcategorization Frames and SelectionalPreferences. Ph.D. thesis, University of Sussex.2001.McCarthy, D., Carroll J. and J. Preiss. J.Disambiguating noun and verb senses usingautomatically acquired selectional preferences.Proceedings of the SENSEVAL-2 Workshop atACL/EACL'01, Toulouse. 2001.Mihalcea R. and Moldovan D. An automatic methodfor generating sense tagged corpora. InProceedings of American Association forArtificial Intelligence. 1999.Miller G. Five papers on WordNet, Special Issue ofInternational Journal of Lexicogrphy 3(4). 1990.Ng. H. T. Getting Serious about Word SenseDisambiguation. In Proceedings of Workshop“Tagging Text with Lexical Semantics: Why,what and how?”, Washington, 1997.Vossen P. EuroWordNet: A Multilingual Databasewith Lexical Semantic Networks, KluwerAcademic Publishers, Dordrecht. 1998.Yarowsky D., Unsupervised word sensedisambiguation rivaling supervised methods. InProceedings of the 33 rd Annual Meeting of theAssociation for Computational Linguistics. 1995.