A Wordnet from the Ground Up

More documents

Recommendations

Info

List of Figures2.1 The LU perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392.2 The synset perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413.1 Examples of WBST+H questions for plWordNet 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . 553.2 Examples of nominal QA pairs generated from different versions ofplWordNet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553.3 Example of the difference between EWBST and WBST QA pairs . . . 593.4 Examples of QA pairs with detractors generated from different versionsof plWordNet for the same QA pair . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 603.5 Parts of a lexico-morphosyntactic constraint which describes nominalLUs via adjectival modification (AdjC) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683.6 Parts of a morphosyntactic constraint which describes nominal LUs viathe modification by a nominal LU in the genitive case (NmgC) . . . . . 694.1 The essentials of the JestInst pattern implementation in JOSKIPI . . . 1054.2 The essentials of the TakichJak pattern implementation in JOSKIPI . . 1064.3 Examples of LU pairs extracted from the joint corpus by all threelexico-morphosyntactic patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1094.4 Examples of LU pairs extracted by different lexico-morphosyntacticpatterns from the joint corpus (C – correct, I – incorrect) . . . . . . . 1104.5 Examples of hypernymy instances extracted by Estratto, version EST+nm1284.6 Example results of the classification of LU pairs acquired from plWord-Net as relevant (near-synonyms and close hypernyms) and not relevant.The classifier was C4.5, the positive to negative ratio 1:10; manuallyprepared negative examples were used together with automatically generatedexamples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1404.7 Example results of the classification of LU pairs not present in plWord-Net (at the time of the test) as relevant (near-synonyms and close hypernyms)and not relevant. The classifier was C4.5, the positive tonegative ratio 1:10; manually prepared negative examples were usedtogether with automatically generated examples . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142209
210 List of Figures4.8 WNW’s suggestions for ‘pocałunek’ (kiss). Glosses (from left to theright): ‘nagroda’ prize/goal, ‘gest’ gesture, ‘ruch’ movement – the fit,‘dotyk’ touch, ‘nagroda’ prize/possession, ‘pieszczota’ caress . . . . . 1534.9 WNW’s very accurate suggestions for ‘nikiel’ (nickel). Glosses: metal‘metal’, pierwiastek ‘element’, metal szlachetny ‘precious metal’, żelazo‘iron’, miedź ‘copper’, platyna ‘platinum’, złoto ‘gold’ . . . . . . . . . 1564.10 An almost correct attachment suggested by WNW for semestr ‘semester’.Glosses: czas ‘time’, okres ‘period’, rok ‘year’, półrocze ‘semester, halfyear’,miesiąc ‘month’, wrzesień ‘September’, październik ‘October’,grudzień ‘December’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1574.11 Two correct senses and one closely related, which WNW predictedfor statuetka ‘figurine’. Glosses: wyróżnienie ‘distinction’, nagroda‘award’, odznaczenie ‘honour, decoration’, premia ‘bonus’, puchar ‘cup’,medal ‘medal’, rzeźba ‘sculpture’, popiersie ‘bust’, figura ‘figure = image’,odznaka ‘honour, decoration’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1584.12 A correct WNW decision made for karafka ‘carafe’ on the evidencecollected from the context. Glosses: pojemnik ‘container’, naczynie‘pot = utensil’, naczynie sanitarne ‘sanitary pot’, naczynie gospodarcze‘household container’, butelka, flaszka, szkło ‘bottle, bottle, (glass) bottle’,butelka, butla ‘baby bottle’, kryształ ‘crystal (container)’, naczyniestołowe ‘tableware’, szklanka ‘glass = container’ . . . . . . . . . . . . 1594.13 WNW’s accurate suggestion, and one indirectly related to a informalsense, for dzięcioł ‘woodpecker’; the informal sense is ‘one who cons(habitually learns by heart)’. Glosses: ptak ‘bird’, kuropatwa ‘partridge’,ptak drapieżny ‘carnivore bird’, jaskółka ‘swallow’, jastrząb‘hawk’, sikorka ‘tit, chikadee; informally: adolescent girl’, dziewczyna‘girl’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1604.14 Two close attachments with regular polysemy that WNW suggestedfor urna ‘urn’ based only on weak fitness. Glosses: pojemnik ‘container’,skrzynia ‘chest’, kontener ‘container’, trumna ‘coffin’, naczynie‘container’, zasobnik, rezerwuar, pojemnik, zbiornik ‘container/tank,reservoire, container, container/reservoir/receptacle’ . . . . . . . . . . 1614.15 Two wrong attachments for sztaba ‘bar’ caused by the TaKIPI taggererror in identifying LUs (sztaba and sztab ‘staff’) with overlappingparadigms. Glosses: dowództwo ‘command’, centrum dowodzenia‘command centre’, centrala ‘centre, central’, zatyczka ‘plug’, pogrzebacz‘poker’, pręt ‘rod’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Page 1 and 2:
A Wordnetfrom the Ground Up
Page 3 and 4:
Work financed by the Polish Ministr
Page 7 and 8:
6 Prefaceheartfelt thanks go to all
Page 9:
8 Chapter 1. Motivation, Goals, Ear
Page 12 and 13:
1.1. Motivation 11[a] special form
Page 14 and 15:
1.1. Motivation 13Affect (Strappara
Page 16 and 17:
1.2. The Goals of the plWordNet Pro
Page 18 and 19:
1.2. The Goals of the plWordNet Pro
Page 20 and 21:
1.3. Early Decisions 19Merge Model:
Page 22:
1.3. Early Decisions 214. On the ot
Page 25 and 26:
24 Chapter 2. Building a Wordnet Co
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
48 Chapter 3. Discovering Semantic
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
102 Chapter 4. Extracting Relation
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160: 158 Chapter 4. Extracting Relation
Page 167 and 168: 166 Chapter 5. Polish WordNet Today
Page 186 and 187: Appendix ATests for Lexico-semantic
Page 188 and 189: 187Test for adjectives (T. IX)1. p1
Page 190 and 191: 189RelatednessTest for nouns (T. XV
Page 192 and 193: BibliographyAgarwal, Abhaya and Alo
Page 194 and 195: Bibliography 193on Deep Lexical Acq
Page 196 and 197: Bibliography 195Derwojedowa, Magdal
Page 198 and 199: Bibliography 197Grefenstette, Grego
Page 200 and 201: Bibliography 199Kurc, Roman. (2008)
Page 202 and 203: Bibliography 201Mohammad, Saif and
Page 204 and 205: Bibliography 203. (2006) “The pot
Page 206 and 207: Bibliography 205and Technology 7(1-
Page 208 and 209: List of Tables2.1 The size of the c
Page 212 and 213: List of Figures 2114.16 Completely
Page 214 and 215: Index 213CBC, see Clustering by Com
Page 216 and 217: Index 215169, 177, 178, 180, 182hyp
Page 218 and 219: Index 217mutual hypernymy, 24Mutual
Page 220 and 221: Index 219SUMO, 14Supported Vector M
Page 222: A language without a wordnet is at
show all

A Wordnet from the Ground Up

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?