[PPT] - Natural Language and the Semantic Web: a crucial symbiosis Philipp PowerPoint Presentation

SLIDE 1

7/16/09

Challenge the future

Delft University of Technology

Natural Language and the Semantic Web: a crucial symbiosis

Philipp Cimiano

Web Information Systems, TU Delft, The Netherlands

SLIDE 2

2 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Aims and Not-Aims

Aims
Overview
Raise Questions
Entertain and Encourage

Not-Aims

Present my own work (only a bit ;-)
Present solutions or answers

SLIDE 3

3 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Structure

The relation between ontologies and natural language
Applications at the ontology-language interface
Principled approaches to the language-ontology interface
The LexInfo model
Conclusion

SLIDE 4

4 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Symbiosis

The term symbiosis commonly describes close and often long-term

interactions between different biological species.

SLIDE 5

5 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Different type of symbiotic relations

Mutualism is a biological interaction between two organisms, where

each individual derives a fitness benefit, for example increased survivorship.

Commensalism is a class of relationship between two organisms

where one organism benefits but the other is unaffected.

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between two different
rganisms where one organism, the parasite, takes favor from the

host, sometimes for a prolonged time. What type of relation exists between ontologies (as building blocks of the Semantic Web) and natural language?

SLIDE 6

6 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Fitness Benefit

What fitness benefit do ontologies derive from natural language?

SLIDE 7

7 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Symbol Grounding

Symbol Grounding Problem (Harnard 1990): it is very difficult (if not

impossible) to express the meaning of a symbol in the system itself. We need anchoring to some external system.

In the case of ontologies, this external system is language.
We define local names as part of URIs

http://www.example.org#car

We specify labels of these URIs

rdf:label(http://www.example.org#car,’car’)

We add natural language definitions of the classes and properties we

define (e.g. using rdfs:comment) “A car is a wheeled motor vehicle used for transporting passengers, which also carries its own engine or motor.”

SLIDE 8

8 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Further benefits

Ontologies benefit from language:
Grounding of meaning for humans
Population of ontologies from textual data (massively available)
Language-based interaction with knowledge (e.g. querying by way
f natural language)
Reading documents describing how humans perceive the world to

support ontology engineering (consulting domain-specific literature is an important step in most knowledge engineering methodologies)

SLIDE 9

9 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

A commensual or parasitic relation ?

So is the relation commensal or even parasitic in the sense that
ntologies need language (to ground the meaning of symbols) but

language does not profit from ontologies?

SLIDE 10

10 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

NLP benefits from ontologies

In formal semantics it is assumed that meaning can be captured by a

logical formalism (typically FOL) which supports reasoning and drawing of inferences (humans clearly do so).

The meaning of the sentence: “Vincent is married to Mia” is:

marriedTo(vincent,mia)

But what do these symbols mean in the logical system in terms of

what conclusions we can draw? (is MarriedTo symmetric? timeless?)

What are the legal symbols that we can use? (a question of ontology)

SLIDE 11

11 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

There are a number of ways in which meaning can be represented

e.g. “Vincent is married to Mia.”

marriedTo(vincent,mia) ∃x marriage(x)∧ partner(x,vincent)∧ partner(x,mia) ∃x marriage(x)∧ partner(x,vincent)∧ partner(x,mia) ∧holdsDuring(x,interval) ∧ overlap(interval,now)

SLIDE 12

12 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Word Sense Disambiguation (WSD)

Well-known that words have different senses (at least 10 according to

WordNet!)

There is no limit to the senses that we can consider (very fine-grained)

SLIDE 13

13 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Named Entity Recognition

Named entity recognition recognizes entities of a certain type in

textual data: <painter>Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn </painter> was born on <date> July 15, 1606 </date> in <city> Leiden </city>, <country> the Netherlands </country>. He was the ninth child born to <person> Harmen Gerritszoon van Rijn </person> and <person> Neeltgen Willemsdochter van Zuytbrouck </person>.

Arbitrary number of possible types and granularity (tag people as

person or according to their profession etc.)

SLIDE 14

14 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Semantic Normalization

The Liffy flows through Dublin.

=> flowsThrough(Liffy,Dublin)

Dublin lies at the Liffy.

=> lies_at(Dublin,Liffy)

Dublin is located at the Liffy.

=> located_at(Dublin,Liffy)

The Liffy passes Dublin.

=> passes(Liffy,Dublin)

SLIDE 15

15 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Ontologies are crucial for the analysis

f natural language
Ontologies define and axiomatize a vocabulary.
Define the meaning of symbols to allow to reason with them (e.g.

marriedTo is symmetric, bound to a certain time interval)

Define the granularity for WSD and NER and other tasks.
Normalization
Help to constrain the task of interpreting language for a specific

purpose, domain, application etc.

SLIDE 16

16 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Applications at the interface between language and ontologies

Information Extraction / Ontology Population
Ontology-based Question Answering
Ontology Engineering
Ontology Verbalization

SLIDE 17

17 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Scenario

Assume we have an ontology about artists modeling:
Name
Birth and death dates
Birth and death places
Marriages, children
Paintings with their creation date
Influences by other artists
Etc.

There are many artists so it is hard add all relevant instances manually. Textual data is massively available, so what about extracting information from textual data to populate the ontology automatically? This process has been typically referred to as ontology population (as opposed to ontology learning which tries to learn the actual schema)

SLIDE 18

18 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

1. Ontology Population/Information

Extraction

“Claude Monet was born on 14 November 1840
n the fifth floor of 45 rue Laffitte, in the ninth

arrondissement of Paris.”

> birthplace(Claude Monnet, Paris)
> birthdate (Claude Monnet,14.11.1840)
“Monet lived from December 1871 to 1878 at

Argenteuil, a village on the Seine near Paris”.

> type(stay_Monnet_Paris,Stay)
> artist(stay_Monnet_Paris,Claude_Monnet)
> place(stay_Monnet_Paris,Argenteuil)
> during(stay_Monnet_Paris,interval_1871_1878)
>

SLIDE 19

19 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Challenges for Ontology Population

Normalization (different variants map to the same ontological

representation)

Capture different variants (learn from examples using machine

learning techniques, sparseness)

Ontology-sensitive processing
Granularity of word senses that need to be distinguished
Use ontology for disambiguation
Ignore constituents which are not relevant to the ontology

SLIDE 20

20 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

2. Question Answering
Ontologies model relevant world knowledge in a certain domain.
As humans, we are interested in accessing this knowledge, preferably

in an intuitive way (e.g. by means of natural language)

Many systems have been designed in the past to meet this need:
Aqualog [Lopez and Motta 2004]
ORAKEL [Cimiano et al. 2008]
GINO [Bernstein and Kaufmann 2006]
And many more…
E.g. Who is a professor at the knowledge media institute?
Prof. Enrico Motta
Prof. John Domingue
Prof. Stefan Rueger

SLIDE 21

21 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Ontology-based Question Answering (e.g. Aqualog [Lopez and Motta 2004])

Who is a Professor at the Knowledge Media Institute? (Who,is,professor) (professor,at,Knowledge Media Institute) <typeOf ?x Professor-in-Academia> & <works-in-unit ?x KMi> RSS

SLIDE 22

22 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Ontology-based Question Answering

Who is PC member of the ISWC conference? (Who,is,PC Member) (PC Member,of,ISWC Conference) (?x,PCMemberOf,ISWC)

SLIDE 23

23 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

3. Language in Ontology Engineering

Ontology Languages (OWL and RDFS) are hard to grasp, both semantically and syntactically.

RDF-XML and OWL-XML syntaxes hard to read by humans
OWL Abstract syntax only for experts (logicians)
Manchester syntax more intuitive, but not for “casual users”

Pizza AND NOT (hasTopping SOME FishTopping) AND NOT (hasTopping SOME MeatTopping) The idea has been to allow people to model ontological knowledge using natural language. Most approaches along these lines rely on “controlled natural language”.

SLIDE 24

24 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

What is controlled natural language?

Controlled natural languages (CNLs) are subsets of natural languages,
btained by restricting the grammar and vocabulary in order to reduce
r eliminate ambiguity and complexity.
Reducing ambiguity: “Every man loves a woman.”
Reading 1: Every man loves a woman which is specific to him.”

⇒ Use “Every man loves a woman.”

Reading2: All man love the same woman.

⇒ Use “There is a woman that every man loves.” Controlled language is prescriptive in this sense and people have to learn what expressions to use to express a certain state of affairs.

SLIDE 25

25 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

4. Ontology Verbalization
Helping in ontology engineering by:
Verbalizing the ontology
Allowing to create axioms in natural language
Different approaches:
ACE [Kaljurand et al. 2008]
Sydney Syntax [Cregan et al. 2008]

SLIDE 26

26 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Verbalization in ACE and Sydney Syntax

Design Choices:
Bijective Mapping between Controlled Language and Axiomatic

Representation (allows “roundtripping”, see [Davis et al. 2008])

Functional: one unique way of verbalizing something
Do not use constructs mirroring the OWL syntax, use “natural

English”

“car is a subclass of vehicle”: => “Every car is a vehicle.”
“Man and woman are disjoint classes” => “There is no man

that is also a woman.”

Use variables to express more complex axioms:
“If X is married to Y then Y is also married to X”.

SLIDE 27

27 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

OWL Verbalization

wl:IntersectionOf(

cat

wl:ComplementOf(
wl:SomeValuesFrom(

like

wl:IntersectionOf(

dog

wl:UnionOf(
wl:SomeValuesFrom(attack mailman)
wl:OneOf(Fido))))))

Verbalized as “something that is a cat and that does not like a dog that attacks a mailman or that is Fido”

SLIDE 28

28 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Opaqueness

Make the various SW formalisms opaque to the user (OWL, SWRL,

SPARQL)

Every employee that does not own a car owns a bike.
Every man that owns a car likes that car.
Who owns a car?

employee∩¬(∃ own.car) ⊆ ∃ own.bike (OWL) man(?x)∧own(?x,?y)∧car(?y) → like(?x,?y) (SWRL) SELECT ?x WHERE {?x owns ?y. ?y rdf :type car} (SPARQL)

SLIDE 29

29 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Limits of ACE -> OWL

Mathematical (e.g. transitive properties):
“If something A is taller than something B and B is taller than

something C then A is taller than C.”

Quite complex (disjoint union):
“No male is a female. No female is a male. Every person is a male
r is a female. Everything that is a male or that is a female is a

person.”

Much easier than Protégé?

SLIDE 30

30 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

5. Text Generation from Ontologies

[Bontcheva 2005]

<rdf:Description rdf:about=http://www.aifb.uni-kalrsuhe.de/Personen/viewPersonOWL#instance? id_db=20> <rdf:type> <owl:Class rdf:about=“&swrc;AssistantProfessor”> </rdf:type> <swrc:name rdf:datatype=“xsd:string”> York Sure </swrc:name> <swrc:phone rdf:datatype=“xsd:string”> +49 (0) 721 608 6592 </swrc:phone> <swrc:fax rdf:datatype=“xsd:string”> +49 (0) 721 608 6580 </swrc:fax> <swrc:homepage rdf:datatype=“xsd:string”> http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ysu</ swrc:homepage> </rdf:Description> York Sure has a telephone number +49 (0) 721 608 6592, a fax number +49 (0) 721 608 6580, and a web page http://www.aifb.uni-karlsruhe.de/WBS/ysu.

SLIDE 31

31 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Different parts of the puzzle

Ontology-based Question Answering Ontology Generation Ontology Verbalization Ontology Population

SLIDE 32

32 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Reuse of NLP approaches

To make the landscape more homogeneous, building a common

resources, infrastructures, grammars etc. would be crucial.

This should be achieved by reusing state-of-the-art and mature

technologies from the NLP community, in particular:

Dependency parsing
Compositional semantics

SLIDE 33

33 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Many state-of-the-art parsers (dependency parsers)

On the one hand, there are many state-of-the-art dependency parsers

that we could use:

Stanford Parser (http://nlp.stanford.edu/software/lex-parser.shtml),

Manning et al.

RASP (http://www.informatics.susx.ac.uk/research/groups/nlp/

rasp/) , Sussex, by T. Briscoe and T. Caroll

Malt (http://maltparser.org/ ) by Joakim Nivre, Sweden
In addition, there are large-scale grammars available:
XLE LFG Grammar Engineering Environment by PARC (used in Powerset and

Bing recently)

LinGO English Resource Grammar (ERG)
…

SLIDE 34

34 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Who is professor at the Knowledge Media Institute?

is who professor attr nsubj Knowledge Media Institute prep_at the det

SLIDE 35

35 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Problems of “shallow” triple-based approaches

Triple-based approach too simplistic to account for fine-grained

meaning variations: Who was a professor at the Knowledge Media Institute? Who has been PC member of all ISWC conferences?

The distinctions are often lost when we mapping into triples and it is

very hard to reconstruct them (there is nothing similar to “was” and “all” in the ontology), so still if we carry the information on, similarity- based approaches can not use it properly!

SLIDE 36

36 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Problematic examples for triple-based approaches

Who was PC member of all ISWC conferences? (Who,was_a,PC Member) (PC Member,of,ISWC Conference) (?x,PCMemberOf,ISWC) ?x forall y (y rdf:type Conference; y hasAcronym “ISWC”) -> x pcMemberOf y Small but important variations in meaning which escape triple- based approaches

SLIDE 37

37 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Compositional semantics

Principle of compositional semantics: The meaning of a question

(sentence) is determined by the meaning of its parts and the way they are composed together. Important: takes into account the contribution of every single word in terms of the overall meaning of the sentence, guided by the dependency analysis.

Vincent loves Mia. => loves(vincent,mia) loves vincent mia subj

bj

λx λy love(x,y)

Vincent Mia

SLIDE 38

38 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Who was a PC Member of the ISWC conference?

was who PC member conference the ISWC attr nsubj prep_of det nn

?x person(x) ∧∃y PCMemberOf(x,y)∧Conference(y)∧hasAcronym(y,"ISWC")

SLIDE 39

39 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Who was a PC Member of all ISWC conferences?

was who PC member conferences all ISWC attr nsubj prep_of det nn

?x person(x) ∧∀y (Conference(y)∧hasAcronym(y,"ISWC")) → PCMemberOf(x,y)

SLIDE 40

40 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Compositional Semantics Approach

Elegant and principled approach to compute the meaning of sentences

(w.r.t. to the given ontology)

Together with dependency parsing, it has the potential to provide a

common basis for all those applications mapping language to ontology and the other way round:

Ontology Population
Ontology-based Question Answering
Generation
Powerful approach not always trivial to implement (research

challenge!)

SLIDE 41

41 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Language-ontology interfaces needs lexical semantics

The lexical semantics of nouns, adjectives, verbs etc. has to be

specified with respect to the domain ontology for all applications at the

ntology-language interface.
The meaning of a question, sentence etc. w.r.t. to the ontology can

then be calculated on the basis of the lexical semantics of the single words according to the principle of compositional semantics.

Suboptimal solution: every instantiation of an application at the

language-ontology interface (population, verbalization, generation) instantiates the mapping from the ontology from scratch.

Optimal solution: we make the meaning of nouns, adjectives, verbs
etc. explicit and publish them declaratively (as an ontology)
This is the goal we have pursued when developing the LexInfo model.

SLIDE 42

42 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Bridging the gap: ontology lexicons

Ontology lexicon

“Ontology lexicons” provide information about linguistic realization of concepts,

properties, instances etc. (clearly separating but linking both levels) in a declarative fashion

These ontology lexicons are not proprietary to any system and can be reused.
While the ontology “talks” about concepts, properties, instances and other

axioms, the ontology lexicon “talks” about “lexical elements”, together with information about part-of-speech, morphological (de-) composition, syntactic behaviour etc.

SLIDE 43

43 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Separation between Linguistic and Ontological Level

Separation also allows to develop and maintain the lexicons

independently of the ontology.

This means that we can perfectly allow different lexica for each
ntology to co-exist (why not?)
In RDF and SKOS, this is not possible.
Our solution (sketch):
ntology

lexicon ontology river (concept) river (lexical entry) noun lemma “river” “rivers” POS plural refersTo (meta‐ontology)

SLIDE 44

44 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

LexInfo: LexicalEntry

Top level distinguishes specifically different parts-of-speech as classes:

SLIDE 45

45 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

X flows through Y (IntransitivePP)

SLIDE 46

46 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Variants of Expression with LexInfo

flowsThrough(Seine,Paris)

Paris is located at the Seine. The Seine flows through Paris. The Seine crosses Paris. The Seine passes Paris.

SLIDE 47

47 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Vision

Ontology lexicon Ontology lexicon Ontology lexicon Ontology lexicon

SLIDE 48

48 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Conclusion

There is indeed a symbiotic relation between language and ontologies

in which both benefit from each other

Many applications at the language-ontology interface do not build on a

common approach (allowing reuse of grammars, components etc.)

Many mature techniques from the computational linguistics/semantics

communities are ready to be used.

Important step: principled models for representing the lexical

semantics of words in a way that they can be reused

SLIDE 49

49 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Thanks for your attention!

SLIDE 50

50 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

Acknowledgements

Multipla project - DFG grant 38457858

SLIDE 51

51 Semantic Web Summer School (SWSS09), Cercedilla

References

1.

A. Bernstein, E. Kaufmann (2006),” GINO - A Guided Input Natural Language Ontology Editor”, Proceedings of the

5th International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC 2006). 2.

K. Bontcheva (2005), “Generating Tailored Textual Summaries from Ontologies”, Proceedings of the European

Semantic Web Conference (ESWC), pp. 531-545 3.

P. Cimiano and P. Haase and J. Heizmann and M. Mantel and R. Studer (2008), “Towards portable natural language

interfaces to knowledge bases: The Case of the ORAKEL system”, Data Knowledge Engineering (DKE), 65(2), pp. 325-354 4.

A. Cregan, R. Schwitter, T. Meyer: Sydney OWL Syntax - towards a Controlled Natural Language Syntax for OWL

1.1., Proceedings of the Fourth OWLED Workshop on OWL Experiences and Directions, 2007. 5.

B. Davis, A. Ali Iqbal, A. Funk, V. Tablan, K. Bontcheva, H. Cunningham, S. Handschuh (2008), “RoundTrip Ontology

Authoring”. Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference, pp. 50-65 6.

S. Harnad (1990) The Symbol Grounding Problem. Physica D 42: 335-346. Lopez

7.

K. Kaljurand, “ACE View – an ontology and rule editor based on Attempto Controlled English” Proceedings of the

Fifth OWLED Workshop on OWL: Experiences and Directions, collocated with ISWC 2008 8.

V. Lopez, and E. Motta (2004) Ontology Driven question answering in AquaLog, Proceedings of the 9th International

Conference on Applications of Natural Language to Information Systems (NLDB 2004), Manchester, UK