After OWL: defacto standards for semantic technologies (or: what do you get for €40m EU research money?) http://gate.ac.uk/ http://nlp.shef.ac.uk/ Hamish Cunningham, Kalina Bontcheva, Valentin Tablan, Diana Maynard, Wim Peters, Niraj Aswani, Milena Yankova, Yaoyong Li, Akshay Java, Michael Dowman ILASH workshop, March 2004
24
Embed
After OWL: defacto standards for semantic technologies (or: what do you get for €40m
After OWL: defacto standards for semantic technologies (or: what do you get for €40m EU research money?) http://gate.ac.uk/ http://nlp.shef.ac.uk/ - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
After OWL: defacto standardsfor semantic technologies
• Context:• increasing use of “semantic” technology in IT• the role(s) of human language technology• substantial investment in the next phase of semantic web
research
• Semantic Web: moving on from formal standards• Acronym soup:
• GATE: HLT API 4 SDK SW & KT
• An application: Ontology-Based IE in KIM• Issues in API design, next steps
3(24)
The Knowledge Economy and Human Language
Gartner, December 2002: • taxonomic and hierachical knowledge mapping and indexing
will be prevalent in almost all information-rich applications • through 2012 more than 95% of human-to-computer
information input will involve textual language A contradiction: • to deal with the information deluge we need formal knowledge
in semantics-based systems • our information spaces are in informal and ambiguous natural
language The challenge: to reconcile these two phenomena
4(24)
HumanLanguage
Formal Knowledge(ontologies andinstance bases)
(A)IE
CLIE
(M)NLG
ControlledLanguage
OIE
SemanticWeb; Semantic Grid;Semantic Web Services
KEYMNLG: Multilingual Natural Language GenerationOIE: Ontology-aware Information ExtractionAIE: Adaptive IECLIE: Controlled Language IE
HLT: Closing the Loop
5(24)
SEKT: Semantic Knowledge Technology• 6th framework IP project
• Duration: 36 months from 1/1/4, €12.5m
• http://sekt.semanticweb.org/
• Improve automation of ontology and metadata generation
• Develop highly-scalable solutions
• Research sound inferencing despite inconsistent models
• Other related projects:• AceMedia IP (semantic knowledge systems)• PrestoSpace IP (cultural heritage / digital libraries)• BRICKS IP (cultural heritage / digital libraries)
• Total EU/6FP investment in semantic tech. research €40m: potential to influence the emergence of defacto standards
Next step for Semantics tech: from formal to defacto standards?
• Computer scientists love standards, so we have many• For any given problem there are usually 3 “standards”• OWL is no exception: Lite, DL, Full• There are good reasons, but cf. RDF(S)
implementation history: applications will of necessity mix and match
• If we can achieve standard practice and libraries in applications we will have made a next step and will promote takeup
• (Pathological) example: TCP/IP vs. OSI
9(24)
HLT API 4 SDK SW & KT• What sorts of software do we need?• Ontology and metadata management: storage;
versionning; caching, inferencing; etc. (below)• Human language technology components and
services (not monolithic systems, not unproven research prototypes)
• The role of measurement in scaling and robustness: in HLT this means MUC, TREC, ACE, TIDES, ...
• Here’s one we baked earlier....
10(24)
GATE (the Volkswagen Beetle of Language Processing) is:
• Eight years old, with the largest user constituency of its type• An architecture A macro-level organisational picture for LE
software systems. • A framework For programmers, GATE is an object-oriented
class library that implements the architecture. • A development environment For language engineers,
computational linguists et al, a graphical development environment.
• Some free components... ...and wrappers for other people's components
of Manchester, UMIST, the University of Karlsruhe, Vassar College, the University of Southern California and a large number of other UK, US and EU Universities
• UK and EU projects inc. MyGrid, CLEF, dotkom, AMITIES, CubReporter, Poesia...
12(24)
Architectural principles• Non-prescriptive, theory neutral
(strength and weakness) • Re-use, interoperation, not reimplementation
(e.g. diverse XML support, integration of Protégé, Jena, Weka, interoperation with SCHUG in MUMIS)
• (Almost) everything is a component, and component sets are user-extendable
• (Almost) all operations are available both from API and GUI
• Why does this matter? It means that GATE works well with other tools, embeds easily, and achieves robustness through focus (API requirements)
13(24)
All the world’s a Java Bean....
CREOLE: a Collection of REusable Objects for Language Engineering:
• GATE components: modified Java Beans with XML configuration
• The minimal component = 10 lines of Java, 10 lines of XML, 1 URL
Why bother? • Allows the system to load arbitrary language
processing components
14(24)
NOTES•everything is a replaceable bean•all communication via fixed APIs •low coupling, high modularity, high extensibility
…
HTMLdocs
RTFdocs
XMLdocs
PDFdocs
email
XMLDocument
Format
HTMLDocument
Format
PDFDocument
Format
…Document
FormatLayer (LRs)
XML OraclePostgreSql .ser
DataStore Layer
Corpus Document
DocumentContent
AnnotationSet
Annotation FeatureMap
Corpus Layer (LRs)
NOTES (2)•eg: Protégé LR & VR both wrapped in Res. (bean) API
•ontology repositories and inference are the same: KAON + Sesame + Orenge + ?
GATE APIs
Processing Layer (PRs)
NE Co-ref TEs TRs POS …
Onto-logy
ProtégéOnto-logy
Word-net
Gaz-etteers
Language Resource Layer (LRs)
...
Application Layer
ANNIE OBIE …IDE GUI Layer (VRs)
ADiff OntolVR DocVR ... WebServices
15(24)
Issues (1): a common HLT API
• OGSA, WMSO in the web services layer?
• Eclipse: less code for us, more services for users? (A free OWL/UML drawing tool, for example)
• ISO TC37/SC4: JNLE special; LIRICS consortium
16(24)
API Application: Ontology-based IEXYZ was established on 03 November 1978 in London. It opened a plant in Bulgaria in …
Ontology & KB
Company
type
HQ
establOn
City Country
Location
partOf
type
type type
“03/11/1978”
XYZ
London
UK Bulgaria
HQpartOf
17(24)
EntityPerson
…
Job-title
president
chancellorminister
…
G.Brown
“Gordon Brown met George Bush during his two day visit.
• An ontology (KIMO) and 200K instances KB• High ambiguity of instances with the same label –
uses disambiguation step• Lookup phase marks mentions from the ontology• Combined with GATE-based IE system to
recognise new instances of concepts and relations• KB enrichment stage where some of these new
instances are added to the KB• Disambiguation uses an Entity Ranking algorithm,
i.e., priority ordering of entities with the same label based on corpus statistics (e.g., Paris)
19(24)
OBIE in KIM (2)
Popov et al. KIM. ISWC’03
20(24)
KIM demo...
• Continue to exploit the pluggability and community effects of GATE (and Sesame, Lucene, ...)
• SWAN: Semantic Web Annotator at DERI/Galway• Syndication• Social networking• Evaluation (below)
Next steps in OBIE
21(24)
(The “P” in OLP) Challenge:Evaluating Richer NE Tagging
• Need for new metrics when evaluating hierarchy/ontology-based NE tagging
• Need to take into account distance in the hierarchy
• Tagging a company as a charity is less wrong than tagging it as a person
22(24)
SW IE Evaluation tasks• Detection of entities and events, given a target
ontology of the domain.• Disambiguation of the entities and events from the
documents with respect to instances in the given ontology. For example, measuring whether the IE correctly disambiguated “Cambridge” in the text to the correct instance: Cambridge, UK vs Cambridge, MA.
• Decision when a new instance needs to be added to the ontology, because the text contains a new instance, that does not already exist in the ontology.
23(24)
Issues (2): a common OMM API• Two design approaches:
A. the “richest set of features” approachpool experience, cover all the bases, be relevant to very many users (“top-down”)
B. the “highest common factors” approachanalyse software, pick common features, create plugability layer (“bottom-up”)
• Both useful; can be combined
• Approach B. has some key advantages:– leads to quicker version 1.0
– minimises arguments (criteria: feature exists in several sys, not is “good”)
• Problems:– features present several places but not all – “operation not supported”?
– new work not prefigured in version 1.0 – roadmaps, placeholders
24(24)
The end
• Tutorial on HLT for the Semantic Web at European Semantic Web Symposium:http://www.esws2004.org/
• These slides: http://gate.ac.uk/sale/talks/ilash-semweb-mar2004.ppt
• More information: http://gate.ac.uk/ http://nlp.shef.ac.uk/