Lexicalized Ontology

AKA: Linguistic Ontology.
Context:
- It can range from being a Lightweight Lexicalized Ontology to being a Formal Lexicalized Ontology.
Example(s):
- SUMO Ontology,
- GM-RKB Ontology,
- ECOLEXICON Terminological KB,
- a Named Entity Ontology.
- …
Counter-Example(s):
- a Lexical Resource, such as WordNet database.
- a Human Readable Dictionary.
See: Lexical Database, Knowledge Base, Ontology, Terminological KB, Natural Language Processing Task, Semantic Wiki, Annotated Corpus.

References

(Powers & Stirtzinger, 2011) ⇒ Joshua Powers, and Anthony Stirtzinger. (2011). “Lexicalizing an Ontology.” In: Proceedings of the 2011 International Conference on Information and Knowledge Engineering (IKE 2011).
- QUOTE: Rich lexica such as WordNet are valuable resources for information extraction from unstructured text. When extraction techniques have formal ontologies as their targets, a mapping from the lexicon to the ontology has been shown to be beneficial in sense disambiguation and usability of the extracted knowledge. Such mappings are generally established manually, which can be a costly procedure if either the lexicon or the ontology is large. This paper describes an approach to accelerate this mapping process via automation using WordNet as the lexicon and a variety of standard ontologies.

(Toral & Monachini, 2007) ⇒ Antonio Toral, and Monica Monachini. (2007). “SIMPLE-OWL: a Generative Lexicon Ontology for NLP and the Semantic Web.” In: Workshop of Cooperative Construction of Linguistic Knowledge Bases at (AI*IA 2007).
- QUOTE: This research deals with the modelling of a Generative Lexicon based ontology to be used in the Semantic Web and Natural Language Processing semantic tasks. This ontology is imported from a existing computational Lexical Resource and is converted to the W3C standard Web Ontology Language. This presents some challenges, as for example the multidimensionality of the original ontology, which are covered in the current paper. The result of this research is an OWL compliant semantically rich and linguistically-based ontology, thus useful to the automatic processing of text within the Semantic Web paradigm.

(van Assem et al., 2006) ⇒ Mark van Assem, Aldo Gangemi, and Guus Schreiber. (2006). “Conversion of WordNet to a standard RDF/OWL representation.” In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Language Resources and Evaluation (LREC 2006).

(Mann, 2002) ⇒ Gideon S. Mann. (2002). “Fine-Grained Proper Noun Ontologies for Question Answering.” In: Proceedings of the Worshop on Building and Using Semantic Networks (SemaNet'02) at (COLING 2002). doi:10.3115/1118735.1118746
- QUOTE: Unfortunately, building a proper noun ontology is more difficult than building a common noun ontology, since the set of proper nouns grows more rapidly. New people are born.

(Dahlgren, 1995) ⇒ Kathleen Dahlgren. (1995). “A Linguistic Ontology.” In: International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 43(5).
- QUOTE: This paper defends the choice of a linguistically-based content ontology for natural language processing and demonstrates that a single common-sense ontology produces plausible interpretations at all levels from parsing through reasoning. The paper explores some of the problems and tradeoffs for a method which has just one content ontology. A linguistically-based content ontology represents the "world view" encoded in natural language. The content ontology (as opposed to the formal semantic ontology which distinguishes events from propositions, and so on) is best grounded in the culture, rather than in the world itself, or in the mind. By "world view" we mean naive assumptions about "what there is" in the world, and how it should be classified. These assumptions are time-worn and reflected in language at several levels: morphology, syntax and lexical semantics.