Terminology and the construction of ontology

Abstract

This paper discusses a method for extracting conceptual hierarchies from arbitrary domain-specific collections of text. These hierarchies can form a basis for a concept-oriented terminology collection, and hence may be used as the basis for developing knowledge-based systems via ontology editors. This reference to ontology is explored in the context of collections of terms. The method presented uses both statistical and linguistic techniques. The result of such an extraction may be useful in information retrieval, knowledge management, or in the discipline of terminology science itself.

Elicitation synergy of extracting conceptual tags and hierarchies in textual document

“…Unfortunately, most areas lack systematic classifications and taxonomic structures for ontology creation reference. Much knowledge is stored in textual sources, such as document and Web pages that frequently have an unstructured format (Gillam et al, 2005;Motta et al, 2000). Consequently, ontology editors encounter the analytical and creative challenges of establishing ontologies in unstructured corpus.…”

“…Restated, ontology building is more of a craft than an engineering task. To extend referenced sources in building ontologies, various studies have suggested retrieving concepts from documents and from the Web (De Bruijn & Martin, 2002;Gillam, Tariq, & Ahmad, 2005). The abundant textual document not only gives knowledge but also provides raw materials in building ontologies.…”

A Standard Methodology for the Construction of Symptoms Ontology for Diabetes Diagnosis

“…Lee Gillam et al [2] discuss the method for extracting conceptual hierarchies from arbitrary domain-specific collections of text. These hierarchies can form a basis for a concept-oriented terminology collection, and hence may be used as the basis for developing knowledge-based systems via ontology editors .…”

Words and patterns: lexico-grammatical patterns and semantic relations in domain-specific discourses

“…Particularly helpful have been the mentioned studies of computational linguistics and ontology engineering, which have created repertoires of lexicogrammatical patterns to identify hyponymic, or type-of, relations (Alfonseca and Manandhar 2002;Bodenreider, Burgun and Rindfleschn 2001;Cederberg and Widdows 2003;Gillam, Tariq and Ahmad 2007;Hearst 1992Hearst , 1998Snow, Jurafsky and Ng 2004) and meronymic, or part-whole, relations (Girju, Badulescu andMoldovan 2003, 2006;van Hage, Kolb and Schreiber 2006). Highly valuable contributions to this paper are also terminology studies, such as Feliú and Cabré's (2002) extensive catalogue of the prototypical linguistic markers that signal the conceptual relations of similarity (synonymy, similarity, opposition or contrast), inclusion (hyponymy), sequentiality (localization, direction, simultaneity, anteriority, posteriority), causality (cause-effect, process-result), instrument (function), meronymy, and association in specialized texts.…”