Changeset 1188 for SMC4LRT

Timestamp:

04/01/11 21:55:53 (13 years ago)

Author:

vronk

Message:

started seriously, but just chaotic intermediate version

File:

• SMC4LRT/Outline.tex (modified) (16 diffs)

SMC4LRT/Outline.tex

@@ -10 +10 @@
 
 \usepackage{url}
+%\usepackage{svn-multi}
+
+% Subversion Information
+%\svnidlong
+%{$HeadURL: $}
+%{$LastChangedDate: $}
+%{$LastChangedRevision: $}
+%{$LastChangedBy: $}
+%\svnid{$Id$} 
+
 
 %%% Examples of Article customizations
@@ -73 +83 @@
 
 \subsection{Main Goal}
+
+
+a) define/use semantic relations between categories (RelationRegistry)
+b) employ ontological resources to enhance search in the dataset (SemanticSearch) 
+c) specify a translation instructions for expressing dataset in rdf  (LinkedData)
+
 Propose a semantic mapping component for Language Resources and Technology within the context of a federated infrastructure (being constructed in the project CLARIN).
 Due to the great diversity of resources and research tasks a full alignement is not achievable. Rather the focus shall be on "soft", dynamic mapping, investigating the possibilities/methods to enable the users to control the mapping with respect to their current task,
 essentially being able to actively manipulate the recall/precision ratio of their searches. This entails the examination of user interaction with and visualization of the relevant information in the user interface and enabling the user to act upon it.
+
+Example
 
 
@@ -87 +105 @@
 and secondly the usability of the ui-controls.
 
++? Identify hooks into LOD?
+
 \subsection{Expected Results}
 
 \begin{itemize}
-
-\item Specification
-\item Prototype
-\item Evaluation
+\item [Specification] definition of a mapping mechanism 
+\item [Prototype] proof of concept implementation 
+\item [Evaluation] evaluation results of querying the dataset comparing traditional search and semantic search
+\item [LinkedData] translation of the source dataset to RDF-based format with links into existing datasets/ontologies/knowledgebases
 
 \end{itemize}
@@ -101 +121 @@
 
 \begin{itemize}
-\item OLAC - Open Language Archives Community \ url{http://www.language-archives.org/}
-\item VLO - Virtual Language Observatory  \url{http://www.clarin.eu/vlo/}
-\item nature.com OpenSearch: A Case Study in OpenSearch and SRU Integration \cite{hammond2010}
-\item Kowalski (2011): Information Retrieval  \cite{kowalski2011}
+\item VLO - Virtual Language Observatory  \url{http://www.clarin.eu/vlo/}, \cite{VanUytvanck2010}
+\item Ontology and Lexicon \cite{Hirst2009}
+\item LingInfo/Lemon \cite{Buitelaar2009}
 \end{itemize}
 
 \subsection{Keywords}
 
-Information retrieval, Information Discovery, IR-Systems
-ILS - Integrated Library Systems
-
-Metadata interoperability - schema mapping /semantic mapping repository, crosswalk, 
-
-Distributed content search, federated search
-
-Fuzzy Search / Similarity measures
-schema mapping / semantic mapping repository profiling?
-
-Visualization (Treemap, SOM)
-
-\section{Context}
+Metadata interoperability, Ontology Mapping, Schema mapping, Crosswalk, Similarity measures, LinkedData
+Fuzzy Search, Visual Search?
+
+Language Resources and Technology, LRT/NLP/HLT
+
+Ontology Visualization
+
+Federated Search, Distributed Content Search
+(ILS - Integrated Library Systems)
+
+
+\section{Related Work}
 
 \subsection{Language Resources and Technology}
@@ -129 +147 @@
 Need some number about the disparity in the field, number of institutes, resources, formats.
 
-This situation has been identified by the community and multiple standardization initiatives had been conducted. This process seems to have gained a new momentum thanks to large Research Infrastructure Programmes introduced by European Commission, aimed at fostering Research communities developing large-scale pan-european common infrastructures. One key player in this development is the project CLARIN
-
-\subsection{CLARIN}
+This situation has been identified by the community and multiple standardization initiatives had been conducted/undertaken. This process seems to have gained a new momentum thanks to large Research Infrastructure Programmes introduced by European Commission, aimed at fostering Research communities developing large-scale pan-european common infrastructures. One key player in this development is the project CLARIN.
+
+\subsubsection{CLARIN}
 
 CLARIN - Common Language Resource and Technology Infrastructure - constituted by over 180 members from round 38 countries. The mission of this project is
@@ -142 +160 @@
 CLARIN/NLP for SSH
 
-\subsection{Standards}
-
-\begin{description}
-\item[ISO12620]
-\item[Z39.50/SRU/SRW/CQL] LoC
+\subsubsection{Standards}
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[ISO12620] Data Category Registry
+\item[LAF] Linguistic Annotation Framework
 \item[CMDI] - (DC, OLAC, IMDI, TEI)
-\item[RDF/OWL]
-\end{description}
-
-\subsection{MD Catalogues}
-
-\subsubsection{NLP}
+\end{description}
+
+\subsubsection{NLP MD Catalogues}
 
 \begin{description}
@@ -164 +179 @@
 \end{description}
 
+\subsection{Ontologies}
+
+\subsubsection{Word, Sense, Concept}
+
+Lexicon vs. Ontology
+Lexicon is a linguistic object an ontology is not.\cite{Hirst2009} We don't need to be that strict, but it shall be a guiding principle in this work to consider things (Datasets, Vocabularies, Resources) also along this dichotomy/polarity: Conceptual vs. Lexical.
+And while every Ontology has to have a lexical representation (canonically: rdfs:label, rdfs:comment, skos:*label), if we don't try to force observed objects into a binary classification, but consider a bias spectrum, we should be able to locate these along this spectrum.
+So the main focus of a typical ontology are the concepts ("conceptualization"), primarily language-independent.
+
+A special case are Linguistic Ontologies: isocat, GOLD, WALS.info
+ontologies conceptualizing the linguistic domain
+
+They are special in that ("ontologized") Lexicons refere to them to describe linguistic properties of the Lexical Entries, as opposed to linking to Domain Ontologies to anchor Senses/Meanings.
+Lexicalized Ontologies: LingInfo, lemon: LMF +  isocat/GOLD +  Domain Ontology
+
+Another special case are Controlled Vocabularies or Taxonomies/Classification Systems, let alone folksonomies, in that they identify terms and concepts/meanings, ie there is no explicit mapping between the language represenation and the concept, but rather the term is implicit carrier of the meaning/concept.
+So for example in the LCSH the surface realization of each subject-heading at the same time identifies the Concept ~.
+
+controlled vocabularies?
+
+
+\subsubsection{Semantic Web - Linked Data}
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[RDF/OWL]
+\item[SKOS]
+\end{description}
+
+\subsubsection{OntologyMapping}
+
+
+\subsection{Visualization}
+
+
+\subsection{FederatedSearch}
+
+\subsubsection{Standards}
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[Z39.50/SRU/SRW/CQL] LoC
+\item[OAI-PMH]
+\end{description}
+
+
 \subsubsection{(Digital) Libraries}
 
-Digital Libraries
 
 General (Libraries, Federations):
@@ -174 +232 @@
     world's biggest Library Federation
 \item[LoC] Library of Congress \url{http://www.loc.gov}
-\item[EU-Lib] European Library \url{http://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/portal/organisation/handbook/accessing-collections_ en.htm}
+\item[EU-Lib] European Library \url{http://www.theeuropeanlibrary.org/portal/organisation/handbook/accessing-collections\_ en.htm}
 \item[europeana] virtual European library - cross-domain portal \url{http://www.europeana.eu/portal/}
 \end{description}
@@ -187 +245 @@
 \end{description}
 
-
-\subsection{Technologies}
 
 \subsubsection{(MD)search frameworks:}
@@ -208 +264 @@
 \end{description}
 
+\subsection{Summary}
+
+\section{Definitions}
+We want to clarify or lay dowhn a few terms and definition, ie explanation of our understanding
+
+\begin{description}
+\item[Concept]  sense, idea, philosophical problem, which we don't need to discuss here. For our purposes we say: Basic "entity" in an ontology? that of what an ontology is build 
+\item[Ontology]  "a explicit specification of a conceptualization" [cite!], but for us mainly a collection of concepts as opposed to lexicon, which is a collection of words.
+\item[Word]  a lexical unit, a word in a language, something that has a surface Realization (writtenForm) and is a carrier of sense. so a Relation holds: hasSense(Word, Concept)
+\item[Lexicon]  a collection of words, a (lexical) vocabulary
+\item[Vocabulary] an index providing mapping from Word (string) to Concept (uri)
+\item[(Data)Category] (almost) the same as Concept; Things like "Topic", "Genre", "Organization", "ResourceType" are instantiations of Category
+\item[ConceptualDomain] the Class of entities a Concept/Category denotes. For Organization it would be all (existing) organizations,  CD(ResourceType)={Corpus, Lexicon, Document, Image, Video, ...}. Entities of the domain can itself be Categories (ResourceType:Image), but it can be also individuals (Organization University of Vienna)
+\item[Entity] 
+\item[Resource] informational resource, in the context of CLARIN-Project  mainly Language Resources (Corpus, Lexicon, Multimedia)
+\item[Metadata Description] description of some properties of a resource.  MD-Record
+\item[Schema] - CMD-Profile
+\item[Annotation] 
+
+
+\end{description}
 
 \section{Analysis}
@@ -215 +292 @@
 Describe situation regarding the datasets and formats 
 
-collections, profiles/Terms
+collections, profiles/Terms, ResourceTypes!
 
 DC, OLAC,
@@ -223 +300 @@
 \subsection{Infrastructure}
 
-CMDI
+CMDI \cite{Broeder2010}
+
+
+\subsection{Ontologies, Controlled Vocabularies, Knowledge Organizing Systems}
+
+
+\subsubsection{Classification Schemes, Taxonomies }
+LCSH, DDC
+
+
+\subsubsection{Other controlled Vocabularies}
+Tagsets: STTS
+Language codes ISO-639-1
+
+\subsubsection{Domain Ontologies, Vocabularies}
+Organization-Lists
+LT-World !?
+
 
 \subsection{Use Cases}
@@ -242 +336 @@
 
 
+\subsection{Profiles to Data Categories}
+CMD:Profile.Comp.Elem -> DatCat
+
+
+\subsection{Semantic Relations between (Data)Categories}
+
+Relation Registry
+
+!check DCR-RR/Odijk2010 -follow up
+!Cf. Erhard Hinrichs 2009
+
+
+\subsection{Mapping from strings to Entities}
+
+Based on the textual values in the Metadata-descriptions find matching entities in selected Ontologies.
+
+Identify related ontologies:
+LT-World \cite{Joerg2010}
+
+task:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item  express MDRecords in RDF
+\item  identify related ontologies/vocabularies (category -> vocabulary)
+\item  implement (reuse) a lookup/mapping function (Vocabulary Alignement Service? CATCH-PLUS?)
+
+\fbox{  function lookup: Category x String -> ConceptualDomain}
+
+Normally this would be served by dedicated controlled vocabularies, but expect also some string-normalizing preprocessing etc.
+\end{enumerate} 
+
+
+
+\subsection{Semantic Search}
+
+Main purpose for the undertaking described in previous two chapters (mapping of concepts and entities) is to enhance the search capabilities of the MDService serving the Metadata/Resources-data. Namely to enhance it by employing ontological resources.
+Mainly this enhancement shall mean, that the user can access the data indirectly by browsing one or multiple  ontologies, 
+with which the data will then be linked. These could be for example ontologies of Organizations and Projects.
+
+In this section we want to explore, how this shall be accomplished, ie how to bring the enhanced capabilities to the user.
+Crucial aspect is the question how to deal with the even greater amount of information in a user-friendly way, ie how to prevent overwhelming, intimidating or frustrating the user.
 
 Semi-transparently means, that primarily the semantic mapping shall integrate seamlessly in the interaction with the service, but it shall "explain" - offer enough information - on demand, for the user to understand its role and also being able manipulate easily.
 
-
+?
 Facets
 Controlled Vocabularies 
 Synonym Expansion (via TermExtraction(ContentSet))
 
-Defining the Mapping - SKOS, Owl?
-
-Distinction between Metadata and content blurry
-
-\subsection{Metadata}
-CMD:Profile.Comp.Elem -> DatCat
-
+\subsection{Linked Data - Express dataset in RDF}
+
+Partly as by-product of the entities-mapping effort we will get the metadata-description rendered in RDF, linked with 
+So theoretically we then only need to provide them "on the web", to make them a nucleus of the LinkedData-Cloud.
+
+Practically this won't be that straight-forward as the mapping to entities will be a hell of a work.
+But once that is solved, or for the subsets that it is solved, the publication of that data on the "SemanticWeb" should be easy.
+
+Technical aspects (RDF-store?) / interface (ontology browser?)
+
+defining the Mapping:
+\begin{enumerate}
+\item convert to RDF
+translate: MDREcord -> [\#mdrecord \#property literal]
+\item map: \#mdrecord \#property literal  -> [\#mdrecord \#property \#entity]
+\end{enumerate}
 
 \subsection{Content/Annotation}
 AF + DCR + RR
 
+
 \subsection{Visualization}
 Landscape, Treemap, SOM
@@ -266 +410 @@
 Ontology Mapping and Alignement / saiks/Ontology4 4auf1.pdf
 
+
 \section{System Design}
 SOA
@@ -271 +416 @@
 \subsection{Architecture}
 
-Makes use of mulitple Components of the established infrastructure (CLARIN ):
+Makes use of mulitple Components of the established infrastructure (CLARIN ) \cite{Varadi2008}, \cite{Broeder2010}:
 
 \begin{itemize}
@@ -309 +454 @@
 \subsection{Sample Queries}
 
+candidate Categories:
+ResourceType, Format
+Genre, Topic
+Project, Institution, Person, Publisher
+
 \subsection{Usability}
 
-\section{Literature}
-
-\subsection{Standards}
-
-ISO 12620 - Data Category Registry
-
-LoC - SRU / CQL
-
-OAI-PMH
-
-LAF - Linguistic Annotation Framework
-
-\subsection{Books, Papers}
-A Formal Framework for Linguistic Annotation Steven Bird and Mark Liberman 2000
-
-Gerald Kowalski (2011): Information Retrieval Architecture and Algorithms
-
-Chowdhury, Gobinda G. : Introduction to modern information retrieval. - London : Facet Publ., 2010 (trocken)
-
-\subsection{DigLibs}
-
-http://publik.tuwien.ac.at/searchdb.php
-
-ISIWebOfKnowledge (/ + http://scientific.thomsonwebplus.com)
-
-\subsection{Journals, Conferences}
-
-ACM
-http://www.sigir.org/
-
-ECIR
-
-Cambridge Journals
-
-
-
-
-\bibliographystyle{plain}
-\bibliography{../lit/ir}
+\section{Conclusions and Futur Work}
+
+\section{Questions, Remarks}
+
+\begin{itemized}
+\item How does this relate to federated search?
+\item ontologicky vs. semaziologicky (Semanticke priznaky: kategoriálne/archysémy, difernciacne, specifikacne)
+\end{itemized}
+
+
+\bibliographystyle{ieee}
+\bibliography{../../../2bib/lingua,../../../2bib/ontolingua}
+
 
 \end{document}