The reusability of induced knowledge for the automatic semantic markup of taxonomic descriptions

To automatically convert legacy data of taxonomic descriptions into extensible markup language (XML) format, the authors designed a machine-learning-based approach. In this project three corpora of taxonomic descriptions were selected to prove the hypothesis that domain knowledge and conventions automatically induced from some semistructured corpora (i.e., base corpora) are useful to improve the markup performance of other less-structured, quite different corpora (i.e., evaluation corpora). The “structuredness” of the three corpora was carefully measured. Basing on the structuredness measures, two of the corpora were used as the base corpora and one as the evaluation corpus. Three series of experiments were carried out with the MARTT (markuper of taxonomic treatments) system the authors developed to evaluate the effectiveness of different methods of using the n-gram semantic class association rules, the element relative position probabilities, and a combination of the two types of knowledge mined from the automatically marked-up base corpora. The experimental results showed that the induced knowledge from the base corpora was more reliable than that learned from the training examples alone, and that the n-gram semantic class association rules were effective in improving the markup performance, especially on the elements with sparse training examples. The authors also identify a number of challenges for any automatic markup system using taxonomic descriptions. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[1]  Ellen Riloff,et al.  Learning Dictionaries for Information Extraction by Multi-Level Bootstrapping , 1999, AAAI/IAAI.

[2]  Oren Glickman,et al.  Examining Machine Learning for Adaptable End-to-End Information Extraction Systems , 1999 .

[3]  Jonathan Aseltine.  WAVE: An Incremental Algorithm for Information Extraction , 1999 .

[4]  Hong Cui.  MARTT: Using induced knowledge base to automatically mark up plant taxonomic descriptions with XML , 2005, ASIST.

[5]  Albert E. Radford.  Fundamentals of plant systematics , 1986 .

[6]  Raymond J. Mooney,et al.  Active Learning for Natural Language Parsing and Information Extraction , 1999, ICML.

[7]  N. F. F. Ebecken,et al.  On extending F-measure and G-mean metrics to multi-class problems , 2005, Data Mining VI.

[8]  J. Alfredo Sánchez,et al.  X-tract: structure extraction from botanical textual descriptions , 1999, 6th International Symposium on String Processing and Information Retrieval. 5th International Workshop on Groupware (Cat. No.PR00268).

[9]  C. Lee Giles,et al.  DEADLINER: building a new niche search engine , 2000, CIKM '00.

[10]  Stephen Soderland,et al.  Learning Domain-Specific Discourse Rules for Information Extraction , 1995 .

[11]  Jiawei Han,et al.  Data Mining: Concepts and Techniques , 2000 .

[12]  Athanasios Kehagias,et al.  A Dynamic Programming Algorithm for Linear Text Segmentation , 2004, Journal of Intelligent Information Systems.

[13]  Thomas G. Dietterich.  Approximate Statistical Tests for Comparing Supervised Classification Learning Algorithms , 1998, Neural Computation.

[14]  Mary McGee Wood,et al.  Data patterns in multiple botanical descriptions: Implications for automatic processing of legacy data , 2003 .

[15]  Olivier Ferret,et al.  Using Collocations for Topic Segmentation and Link Detection , 2002, COLING.

[16]  Ron Kohavi,et al.  The Case against Accuracy Estimation for Comparing Induction Algorithms , 1998, ICML.

[17]  Linda C. Smith,et al.  Automating semantic markup of semi-structured text via an induced knowledge base: a case study using floras , 2005 .

[18]  James M. Carpenter,et al.  New and rediscovered primitive ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Cretaceous amber from New Jersey, and their phylogenetic relationships , 1997 .

[19]  John D. Lafferty,et al.  Statistical Models for Text Segmentation , 1999, Machine Learning.

[20]  M. J. Dallwitz,et al.  A General System for Coding Taxonomic Descriptions , 1980 .

[21]  Steven Salzberg,et al.  On Comparing Classifiers: Pitfalls to Avoid and a Recommended Approach , 1997, Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery.

[22]  Hong Zhang,et al.  An approach to automatic classification of text for information retrieval , 2002, JCDL '02.

[23]  Sunita Sarawagi,et al.  Automatic segmentation of text into structured records , 2001, SIGMOD '01.

[24]  Alan W. Biermann,et al.  Analyzing the Complexity of a Domain with Respect to an Information Extraction Task , 1997, MUC.

[25]  Ralph Grishman,et al.  Message Understanding Conference- 6: A Brief History , 1996, COLING.

[26]  Don Kirkup,et al.  Towards a digital African Flora , 2005 .

[27]  Ralph Grishman,et al.  Automatic Acquisition of Domain Knowledge for Information Extraction , 2000, COLING.

[28]  Freddy Y. Y. Choi.  Advances in domain independent linear text segmentation , 2000, ANLP.

[29]  Hideki Kozima,et al.  Text Segmentation Based on Similarity between Words , 1993, ACL.

[30]  Marti A. Hearst.  TextTiling: A Quantitative Approach to Discourse , 1993 .