Designing Clustering Methods for Ontology Building - The Mo'K Workbench

This paper describes Mo'K, a configurable workbench that supports the development of conceptual clustering methods for ontology building. Mo'K is intended to assist ontology developers in the exploratory process of defining the most suitable learning methods for a given task. To do so, it provides facilities for evaluation, comparison, characterization and elaboration of conceptual clustering methods. Also, the model underlying Mo'K permits a fine-grained definition of similarity measures and class construction operators, easing the tasks of method instantiation and configuration. This paper presents some experimental results that illustrate the suitability of the model to help characterize and assess the performance of different methods that learn semantic classes from parsed corpora.

[1]  David Faure,et al.  A corpus-based conceptual clustering method for verb frames and ontology , 1998 .

[2]  K. Sparck Jones,et al.  What makes an automatic keyword classification effective , 1971 .

[3]  Fernando Gomez.  Linking WordNet Verb Classes to Semantic Interpretation , 1998, WordNet@ACL/COLING.

[4]  Ralph Grishman,et al.  Generalizing Automatically Generated Selectional Patterns , 1994, COLING.

[5]  Roberto Basili,et al.  An Empirical Symbolic Approach to Natural Language Processing , 1996, Artif. Intell..

[6]  Eugène Chouraqui,et al.  A Knowledge Acquisition Tool for Multi-Perspective Concept Formation , 1996, EKAW.

[7]  Francesc Ribas,et al.  On Learning more Appropriate Selectional Restrictions , 1995, EACL.

[8]  Naftali Tishby,et al.  Distributional Clustering of English Words , 1993, ACL.

[9]  Pierre Zweigenbaum,et al.  Regroupements issus de dépendances syntaxiques en corpus : catégorisation et confrontation à deux modélisations conceptuelles , 2000 .

[10]  Gregory Grefenstette,et al.  Use of syntactic context to produce term association lists for text retrieval , 1992, SIGIR '92.

[11]  Gregory Grefenstette,et al.  Evaluation Techniques for Automatic Semantic Extraction: Comparing Syntactic and Window Based Approaches , 1996 .

[12]  Kenneth Ward Church,et al.  Word Association Norms, Mutual Information, and Lexicography , 1989, ACL.

[13]  H. Edelsbrunner,et al.  Efficient algorithms for agglomerative hierarchical clustering methods , 1984 .

[14]  Daniel Jurafsky,et al.  How Verb Subcategorization Frequencies Are Affected By Corpus Choice , 1998, COLING.

[15]  Ido Dagan,et al.  Similarity-Based Estimation of Word Cooccurrence Probabilities , 1994, ACL.

[16]  W. Bruce Croft,et al.  Lexical ambiguity and information retrieval , 1992, TOIS.

[17]  Hang Li,et al.  Word Clustering and Disambiguation Based on Co-occurrence Data , 1998, COLING.

[18]  Jeremy J. Carroll,et al.  Automatic Learning for Semantic Collocation , 1992, ANLP.

[19]  Javier Béjar,et al.  Efficient Construction of Comprehensible Hierarchical Clusterings , 1998, PKDD.

[20]  Zellig S. Harris,et al.  The form of information in science , 1988 .

[21]  George A. Miller,et al.  Introduction to WordNet: An On-line Lexical Database , 1990 .

[22]  Gilles Bisson.  Conceptual Clustering in a First Order Logic Representation , 1992, ECAI.

[23]  R. Michalski,et al.  Learning from Observation: Conceptual Clustering , 1983 .

[24]  Donald Hindle,et al.  Noun Classification From Predicate-Argument Structures , 1990, ACL.

[25]  Gregory Grefenstetti,et al.  Evaluation techniques for automatic semantic extraction: comparing syntactic and window based approaches , 1996 .

[26]  Philip Resnik,et al.  Structural Ambiguity and Conceptual Relations , 1993, VLC@ACL.

[27]  Philip Resnik,et al.  Using Information Content to Evaluate Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy , 1995, IJCAI.

[28]  Pat Langley,et al.  Models of Incremental Concept Formation , 1990, Artif. Intell..