Semantic Relation
(Redirected from semantic link)
A Semantic Relation is a relation that connects concepts, terms, or entitys based on their semantic content and establishes a truth value for the connection within a knowledge representation system.
- AKA: Conceptual Relation, Meaning Relation, Semantic Link, Semantic Association, Semantic Relationship, Interrelation, Interrelationship.
- Context:
- It can typically establish Meaning Connection through concept linkage.
- It can typically represent Knowledge Structure through semantic network construction.
- It can typically support Reasoning Process through inference pattern.
- It can typically encode Domain Knowledge through specialized relation type.
- It can typically facilitate Concept Organization through systematic relationship.
- It can typically form the foundation of Ontology Structure through semantic relation hierarchy.
- It can typically enable Knowledge Graph Construction through entity relationship modeling.
- ...
- It can often enable Information Retrieval through semantic query expansion.
- It can often support Natural Language Processing through meaning disambiguation.
- It can often assist Knowledge Discovery through semantic pattern recognition.
- It can often provide Conceptual Framework through knowledge structure visualization.
- It can often enhance Text Understanding through concept connection identification.
- It can often serve as Extraction Target in semantic relation extraction tasks.
- It can often connect Entity Types in domain-specific knowledge bases.
- It can often facilitate Text Mining through semantic relation pattern identification.
- ...
- It can range from being a Domain-Independent Semantic Relation to being a Domain-Specific Semantic Relation, depending on its semantic relation application scope.
- It can range from being a Symmetric Semantic Relation to being an Asymmetric Semantic Relation, depending on its semantic relation directional property.
- It can range from being a Binary Semantic Relation to being a Multi-Argument Semantic Relation, depending on its semantic relation arity.
- It can range from being an Abstract Semantic Relation to being an Instantiated Semantic Relation, depending on its semantic relation concretization level.
- It can range from being a Primary-Order Semantic Relation to being a Higher-Order Semantic Relation, depending on its semantic relation complexity level.
- It can range from being a Time-Dependent Semantic Relation to being a Time-Independent Semantic Relation, depending on its semantic relation temporal stability.
- It can range from being a Simple Semantic Relation to being a Complex Semantic Relation, depending on its semantic relation internal structure.
- It can range from being a Boolean Semantic Relation to being a Probabilistic Semantic Relation, depending on its semantic relation certainty model.
- ...
- It can be used in Reasoning Tasks about the world through logical inference patterns.
- It can have a Semantic Relation Type that establishes meta-relationships between relations.
- It can be expressed through Formal Notation, natural language expression, or graphical representation.
- It can connect Concepts based on hierarchical organization, functional association, or attributive qualification.
- It can support Knowledge Base Construction through consistent relation framework.
- It can facilitate Ontology Development through standardized relationship types.
- It can be evaluated for Relation Validity through truth value assessment.
- It can be discovered through Text Mining, corpus analysis, or expert knowledge elicitation.
- It can occur as a Relation Mention in text documents.
- It can be stored as a Relation Record in structured knowledge bases.
- It can be recognized by Semantic Relation Recognition Systems.
- It can be extracted through Complex Relation Extraction Tasks.
- It can be represented in a Semantic Relation Ontology.
- It can connect Thing Concepts within a conceptual system.
- It can be formalized in Boolean Logic Relation systems.
- It can be expanded through Semantic Term Variation Operations.
- It can be detected through automatic pattern recognition techniques.
- It can integrate with Wikipedia Category Network structures.
- It can form the edges in a Text Graph representation.
- It can connect entities in an Entity Relation framework.
- ...
- Examples:
- Semantic Relation Categorys, such as:
- Hierarchical Semantic Relations, such as:
- Hyponymy Semantic Relation for class-subclass connection.
- Meronymy Semantic Relation for whole-part connection.
- Instance Semantic Relation for class-instance connection.
- Hypernymy Semantic Relation for superclass-class connection.
- PartOf Semantic Relation for component-whole connection.
- TypeOf Semantic Relation for taxonomy connection.
- Equivalence Semantic Relations, such as:
- Attributive Semantic Relations, such as:
- Property Semantic Relation for entity-attribute connection.
- Quality Semantic Relation for entity-characteristic connection.
- State Semantic Relation for entity-condition connection.
- Measurement Semantic Relation for entity-quantity connection.
- PropertyOf Semantic Relation for attribute assignment connection.
- Functional Semantic Relations, such as:
- Causal Semantic Relation for cause-effect connection.
- Temporal Semantic Relation for time-based connection.
- Spatial Semantic Relation for location-based connection.
- Instrumental Semantic Relation for means-end connection.
- Succession Semantic Relation for sequence-based connection.
- RelatedTo Semantic Relation for general association connection.
- Hierarchical Semantic Relations, such as:
- Semantic Relation Domain Specificitys, such as:
- Domain-Independent Semantic Relations, such as:
- TypeOf Semantic Relation for universal classification connection.
- PartOf Semantic Relation for universal composition connection.
- PropertyOf Semantic Relation for universal attribution connection.
- InstanceOf Semantic Relation for universal instantiation connection.
- Domain Independent Property Semantic Relation for cross-domain attribute connection.
- Domain-Specific Semantic Relations, such as:
- ProteinOf Semantic Relation for biological entity connection.
- SucceededBy Semantic Relation for historical sequence connection.
- HeadquarterLocation Semantic Relation for organizational geography connection.
- ParentOf Semantic Relation for familial connection.
- Verb Semantic Argument Relation for linguistic predicate-argument connection.
- Domain-Independent Semantic Relations, such as:
- Semantic Relation Structural Types, such as:
- Linguistic Semantic Relations, such as:
- Lexical-Semantic Relation for word meaning connection.
- Word Sense Semantic Relation for polysemy structure connection.
- Paradigmatic Semantic Relation for substitution-based connection.
- Syntagmatic Semantic Relation for co-occurrence-based connection.
- Function Word Semantic Relation for grammatical meaning connection.
- Semantic In Relation for containment meaning connection.
- Visual Semantic Relations, such as:
- Linguistic Semantic Relations, such as:
- Higher-Order Semantic Relations, such as:
- Metaphor Semantic Relation for cross-domain conceptual mapping connection.
- Analogy Semantic Relation for structural similarity connection.
- Metonymy Semantic Relation for representational substitution connection.
- Blended Space Semantic Relation for conceptual integration connection.
- Discourse Semantic Relation for text segment connection.
- Incompatibility Semantic Relation for mutual exclusion connection.
- Semantic Relation Complexitys, such as:
- Coordinating Semantic Relations, such as:
- Subordinating Semantic Relations, such as:
- Semantic Relation Formalisms, such as:
- Semantic Relation Applications, such as:
- ...
- Semantic Relation Categorys, such as:
- Counter-Examples:
- Syntactic Relation, which connects linguistic units based on grammatical structure rather than semantic content.
- Coreference Relation, which identifies multiple expressions referring to the same entity without necessarily establishing a semantic connection.
- Semantic Role, which describes the function of a participant in an event rather than a relationship between concepts.
- Formal Relation, which establishes mathematical connections without meaning-based content.
- Physical Relation, which connects entitys based on physical proximity rather than conceptual similarity.
- Temporal Coincidence, which indicates simultaneous occurrence without implying meaningful connection.
- Statistical Correlation, which shows numerical association that may lack semantic basis.
- Arbitrary Association, which connects entitys without systematic semantic justification.
- See: Semantic Relation Detection, Discourse Relation, Conceptual Graph, Knowledge Base, Ontology, Relation Type, Reasoning System, Knowledge Representation, Semantic Network, Lexical Semantics, Information Retrieval, Natural Language Processing, Conceptual Structure, Semantic Field, Meaning Representation, Taxonomy, Meronomy, Semantic Web, Knowledge Engineering, Omega Ontology, Lightweight Ontology, Data Mining Task, Intensional Definition, Semantic Model.
References
2009
- (WordNet, 2009) ⇒ http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=semantic%20relation
- a relation between meanings
- http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/semantic_relation
- Any relationship between two or more words based on the meaning of the words
- http://coral.lili.uni-bielefeld.de/~ttrippel/terminology/node16.html
- Two basic classes of relations can be distinguished:
- Coordinating relations: (partial-) synonyms and antonyms (see 2.3.3.5);
- Subordinating relations: ISA-relation, PARTOF-relation, HASPROP-relation, TYPEOF-relation, CLASSOF-relation, etc. Most frequently used are the ISA- and PARTOF-relations as the most basic and generic relations. For convenience these are not subdivided, which would be possible otherwise.
- ISA-relation in terminology are called generic relations. According to Van Eynde (1999, forthcoming), they cover a wide range of categories which are used in other frameworks, such as inheritance, implication and inclusion. It is the most frequent relation resulting from subdividing concepts, called taxonomies in lexical semantics (Cruse, 1986, see). If every x is a y, or if every x is a type of y, the relation of x and y is an ISA-relation. Example: A compound is a wordtex2html_wrap_inline3239 (EAGLET, 1997-99, see). HASPROP-relations are closely related to ISA-relations, stating that x has the properties of y. This relation rarely appears in terminologies. PARTOF-relations are often called mereonomies, a parts-pieces relation. There are also superordinates and subordinates: The part is superordinate to the piece. Mereonymic relations can be classified as x is part of y. Example: Compounding is part of word formation (EAGLET, 1997-99, see).
- Two basic classes of relations can be distinguished:
- http://www.db.dk/bh/Lifeboat_KO/CONCEPTS/semantic_relations.htm (by Birger Hjørland)
- Semantic relations (meaning relations): In the narrow sense are semantic relations relations between concepts or meanings.
- Relations between concepts, senses or meanings should not be confused with relations between the terms, words, expressions or signs that are used to express the concepts. It is, however, common to mix both of these kinds of relations under the heading "semantic relations" (i.e., Cruse, 1986; Lyons, 1977; Malmkjær, 1995 & Murphy, 2003), why synonyms, homonyms etc. are considered under the label "semantic relations" in in a broader meaning of this term.
- Some important kinds of semantic relations are:
- Active relation: A semantic relation between two concepts, one of which expresses the performance of an operation or process affecting the other.
- Antonymy (A is the opposite of B; e.g. cold is the opposite of warm)
- Associative relation: A relation which is defined psychologically: that (some) people associate concepts (A is mentally associated with B by somebody). Often are associative relations just unspecified relations.
- Causal relation: A is the cause of B. For example: Scurvy is caused by lack of vitamin C.
- Homonym. Two concepts, A and B, are expressed by the same symbol. Example: Both a financial institution and a edge of a river are expressed by the word bank (the word has two senses).
- Hyponymous relationships ("is a" relation or hyponym-hyperonym), generic relation, genus-species relation: a hierarchical subordinate relation. (A is kind of B; A is subordinate to B; A is narrower than B; B is broader than A). The "is a" relation denotes what class an object is a member of. For example, "CAR - is a - VEHICLE" and "CHICKEN - is a - BIRD". It can be thought of as being a shorthand for "is a type of". When all the relationships in a system are "is a", is the system a taxonomy. The "generic of" option allows you to indicate all the particular types (species, hyponyms) of a concept. The "specific of" option allows you to indicate the common genus (hypernym) of all the particular types.
- Instance-of relation. (“instance”, example relation) designates the semantic relations between a general concept and individual instances of that concept. A is an example of B. Example: Copenhagen is an instance of the general concept 'capital'.
- Locative relation: A semantic relation in which a concept indicates a location of a thing designated by another concept. A is located in B; example: Minorities in Denmark.
- Meronymy, partitive relation (part-whole relation): a relationship between the whole and its parts (A is part of B) A meronym is the name of a constituent part of, the substance of, or a member of something. Meronymy is opposite to holonymy (B has A as part of itself). (A is narrower than B; B is broader than A).
- Passive relation: A semantic relation between two concepts, one of which is affected by or subjected to an operation or process expressed by the other.
- Paradigmatic relation. Wellisch (2000, p. 50): “A semantic relation between two concepts, that is considered to be either fixed by nature, self-evident, or established by convention. Examples: mother / child; fat /obesity; a state /its capital city”.
- Polysemy: A polysemous (or polysemantic) word is a word that has several sub-senses which are related with one another. (A1, A2 and A3 shares the same expression)
- Possessive: a relation between a possessor and what is possessed.
- Related term. A term that is semantically related to another term. In thesauri are related terms often coded RT and used for other kinds of semantic relations than synonymity (USE; UF), homonymity (separated by paranthetical qualifier), generic relations and partitative relations (BT; NT). Related terms may, for example express antagonistic relations, active/passive relations, causal relations, locative relations, paradigmatic relations.
- Synonymy (A denotes the same as B; A is equivalent with B).
- Temporal relation: A semantic relation in which a concept indicates a time or period of an event designated by another concept. Example: Second World War, 1939-1945.
- Troponymy is defined in WordNet 2 as: the semantic relation of being a manner of does something (or sense 2: "the place names of a region or a language considered collectively").
2008
- (Dextre Clarke et al., 2008) ⇒ Stella Dextre Clarke, Alan Gilchrist, Ron Davies and Leonard Will. (2008). “Glossary of Terms Relating to Thesauri and Other Forms of Structured Vocabulary for Information Retrieval." Willpower Information
- semantic relationship
- (use paradigmatic relationship)
- semantic relationship
- (Corbett, 2008) ⇒ Dan R. Corbett. (2008). “Graph-based Representation and Reasoning for Ontologies.” In: Studies in Computational Intelligence, Springer. [http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78293-3 10.1007/978-3-540-78293-3 doi:[http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-78293-3 10.1007/978-3-540-78293-3)
- QUOTE: A Conceptual Graph with respect to a canon is a tuple G=(C,R, type, referent, arg1, ..., argm), where
- [math]\displaystyle{ C }[/math] is the set of concepts ; type : [math]\displaystyle{ C }[/math] → [math]\displaystyle{ T }[/math] indicates the type of a concept, and referent : [math]\displaystyle{ C }[/math] → $I$ indicates the referent marker of a concept.
- [math]\displaystyle{ R }[/math] is the set of conceptual relations, type : [math]\displaystyle{ R }[/math] → [math]\displaystyle{ T }[/math] indicates the type of relation, and each argi : [math]\displaystyle{ R }[/math] → [math]\displaystyle{ C }[/math] is a partial function where argi(r) indicates the i-th argument of the relation r. The argument functions are partial as they are undefined for arguments higher than the relation’s ‘arity’. We adopt the convention that arg0 indicates the (at most) one incoming arc. If there is no incoming arc to the relation, then arg0 is undefined. We also define the function arity(r) which returns an integer value representing the number of arguments that the relation [math]\displaystyle{ r }[/math] has.
- QUOTE: A Conceptual Graph with respect to a canon is a tuple G=(C,R, type, referent, arg1, ..., argm), where
2004
- (Liu & Singh, 2004) ⇒ Hugo Liu, and Push Singh. (2004). “ConceptNet — A Practical Commonsense Reasoning Tool-Kit.” In: BT Technology Journal, Springer.
- Secondly, we extend WordNet's repertoire of semantic relations from the triplet of synonym, is-a, and part-of, to a present repertoire of twenty semantic relations including, for example, EffectOf (causality), SubeventOf (event hierarchy), CapableOf (agent’s ability), PropertyOf, LocationOf, and MotivationOf (affect). Some further intuition for this relational ontology is given in the next section of the paper. Although ConceptNet increases the number and variety of semantic relations, engineering complexity is not necessarily increased.
- Like WordNet, ConceptNet’s semantic network is amenable to context-friendly reasoning methods such as spreading activation [9] (think — activation radiating outward from an origin node) and graph traversal. However, since ConceptNet’s nodes and relational ontology are more richly descriptive of everyday commonsense than WordNet’s, better contextual commonsense inferences can be achieved, and require only simple improvements to spreading activation.
- The ConceptNet knowledge base is formed by the linking together of 1.6 million assertions (1.25 million of which are klines) into a semantic network of over 300 000 nodes. The present relational ontology consists of twenty relation-types.
- Figure 2 is a treemap of the ConceptNet relational ontology, showing the relative amounts of knowledge falling under each relation-type. Table 1 gives a concrete example of each relation-type.
- Table 1 ConceptNet’s twenty relation-types are illustrated by examples from actual ConceptNet data. The relation-types are grouped into various thematics. f counts the number of times a fact is uttered in the OMCS corpus. i counts how many times an assertion was inferred during the ‘relaxation’ phase.
- K-LINES (1.25 million assertions)
- (ConceptuallyRelatedTo ‘bad breath’ ‘mint’ ‘f=4;i=0;’)
- (ThematicKLine ‘wedding dress’ ‘veil’ ‘f=9;i=0;’)
- (SuperThematicKLine ‘western civilisation’ ‘civilisation’ ‘f=0;i=12;’)
- THINGS (52 000 assertions)
- (IsA ‘horse’ ‘mammal’ ‘f=17;i=3;’)
- (PropertyOf ‘fire’ ‘dangerous’ ‘f=17;i=1;’)
- (PartOf ‘butterfly’ ‘wing’ ‘f=5;i=1;’)
- (MadeOf ‘bacon’ ‘pig’ ‘f=3;i=0;’)
- (DefinedAs ‘meat’ ‘flesh of animal’ ‘f=2;i=1;’)
- …
- (Moldovan et al., 2004) ⇒ Dan Moldovan, Adriana Badulescu, Marta Tatu, Daniel Antohe, and Roxana Girju. (2004). “Models for the Semantic Classification of Noun Phrases.” In: Proceedings of HLT/NAACL, Computational Lexical Semantics workshop.
- 1 POSSESSION an animate entity possesses (owns) another entity; (family estate; the girl has a new car.), (Vanderwende 1994)
- 2 KINSHIP an animated entity related by blood, marriage, adoption or strong affinity to another animated entity; (Mary’s daughter; my sister); (Levi 1979)
- 3 PROPERTY/ characteristic or quality of an entity/event/state; (red rose; The thunderstorm was awful.); (Levi 1979) ATTRIBUTE-HOLDER
- 4 AGENT the doer or instigator of the action denoted by the predicate; (employee protest; parental approval; The king banished the general.); (Baker, Fillmore, and Lowe 1998)
- 5 TEMPORAL time associated with an event; (5-o’clock tea; winter training; the store opens at 9 am), includes DURATION (Navigli and Velardi 2003),
- 6 DEPICTION- an event/action/entity depicting another event/action/entity; (A picture of my niece.), DEPICTED
- 7 PART-WHOLE an entity/event/state is part of another entity/event/state (door knob; door of the car), (MERONYMY) (Levi 1979), (Dolan et al. 1993),
- 8 HYPERNYMY an entity/event/state is a subclass of another; (daisy flower; Virginia state; large company, such as Microsoft) (IS-A) (Levi 1979), (Dolan et al. 1993)
- 9 ENTAIL an event/state is a logical consequence of another; (snoring entails sleeping)
- 10 CAUSE an event/state makes another event/state to take place; (malaria mosquitoes; to die of hunger; The earthquake generated a Tsunami), (Levi 1979)
- 11 MAKE/PRODUCE an animated entity creates or manufactures another entity; (honey bees; nuclear power plant; GM makes cars) (Levi 1979)
- 12 INSTRUMENT an entity used in an event/action as instrument; (pump drainage; the hammer broke the box) (Levi 1979)
- 13 LOCATION/SPACE spatial relation between two entities or between an event and an entity; includes DIRECTION; (field mouse; street show; I left the keys in the car), (Levi 1979), (Dolan et al. 1993)
- 14 PURPOSE a state/action intended to result from a another state/event; (migraine drug; wine glass; rescue mission; He was quiet in order not to disturb her.) (Navigli and Velardi 2003)
- 15 SOURCE/FROM place where an entity comes from; (olive oil; I got it from China) (Levi 1979)
- 16 TOPIC an object is a topic of another object; (weather report; construction plan; article about terrorism); (Rosario and Hearst 2001)
- 17 MANNER a way in which an event is performed or takes place; (hard-working immigrants; enjoy immensely; he died of cancer); (Blaheta and Charniak 2000)
- 18 MEANS the means by which an event is performed or takes place; (bus service; I go to school by bus.) (Quirk et al.1985)
- 19 ACCOMPANIMENT one/more entities accompanying another entity involved in an event; (meeting with friends; She came with us) (Quirk et al.1985)
- 20 EXPERIENCER an animated entity experiencing a state/feeling; (Mary was in a state of panic.); (Sowa 1994)
- 21 RECIPIENT an animated entity for which an event is performed; (The eggs are for you) ; includes BENEFICIARY; (Sowa 1994)
- 22 FREQUENCY number of occurrences of an event; (bi-annual meeting; I take the bus every day); (Sowa 1994)
- 23 INFLUENCE an entity/event that affects other entity/event; (drug-affected families; The war has an impact on the economy.);
- 24 ASSOCIATED WITH an entity/event/state that is in an (undefined) relation with another entity/event/state; (Jazz-associated company;)
- 25 MEASURE an entity expressing quantity of another entity/event; (cup of sugar; 70-km distance; centennial rite; The jacket cost $60.)
- 26 SYNONYMY a word/concept that means the same or nearly the same as another word/concept; (NAME) (Marry is called Minnie); (Sowa 1994)
- 27 ANTONYMY a word/concept that is the opposite of another word/concept; (empty is the opposite of full); (Sowa 1994)
- 28 PROBABILITY OF the quality/state of being probable; likelihood
- …
2002
- (Green et al., 2002) ⇒ Rebecca Green, Carol A. Bean, and Sung Hyon Myaeng, editors. (2002). “The Semantics of Relationships: An Interdisciplinary Perspective." Kluwer Academic.
2001
- (Jacquemin, 2001) ⇒ Christian Jacquemin. (2001). “Spotting and Discovering Terms Through Natural Language Processing." MIT Press. ISBN:0262100851
- 'Semantic link: For instance, there is a semantic link from elaboration to refinement.
1995
- (Khoo, 1995) ⇒ Christopher Soo-Guan Khoo. (1995). “Automatic Identification of Causal Relations in Text and Their Use for Improving Precision in Information Retrieval." Doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University.
1973
- (Farradane et al, 1973) ⇒ Jason Farradane, J. M. Russell, and Penelope A. Yates-Mercer. (1973). “Problems in Information Retrieval: Logical jumps in the expression of information.” In: Information Storage and Retrieval, 9(2).
- (Coates, 1973) ⇒ E. J. Coates. (1973). “Some Properties of Relationships in the Structure of Indexing Languages.” In: Journal of Documentation, 29.