Hi Rupert, After doing some tests it seems that the Stanford NLP coreference module is much more accurate than the Open NLP one.So I decided to extend Stanford NLP to add coreference there. Could you add the necessary projects on the branch? And also remove the Open NLP ones?
Thanks, Cristian 2013/7/5 Rupert Westenthaler <rupert.westentha...@gmail.com> > Hi Cristian, > > I created the branch at > > > http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stanbol/branches/nlp-dep-tree-and-co-ref/ > > ATM in contains only the "nlp" and "nlp-json" module. Let me know if > you would like to have more > > best > Rupert > > > > On Thu, Jul 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Cristian Petroaca > <cristian.petro...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Rupert, > > > > I created jiras : https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-1132 and > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-1133. The original one in > > dependent upon these. > > Please let me know when I can start using the branch. > > > > Thanks, > > Cristian > > > > > > 2013/6/27 Cristian Petroaca <cristian.petro...@gmail.com> > > > >> > >> > >> > >> 2013/6/27 Rupert Westenthaler <rupert.westentha...@gmail.com> > >> > >>> On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 3:12 PM, Cristian Petroaca > >>> <cristian.petro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > Sorry, I meant the Stanbol NLP API, not Stanford in my previous > e-mail. > >>> By > >>> > the way, does Open NLP have the ability to build dependency trees? > >>> > > >>> > >>> AFAIK OpenNLP does not provide this feature. > >>> > >> > >> Then , since the Stanford NLP lib is also integrated into Stanbol, I'll > >> take a look at how I can extend its integration to include the > dependency > >> tree feature. > >> > >>> > >>> > >> > > >>> > 2013/6/23 Cristian Petroaca <cristian.petro...@gmail.com> > >>> > > >>> >> Hi Rupert, > >>> >> > >>> >> I created jira https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/STANBOL-1121. > >>> >> As you suggested I would start with extending the Stanford NLP with > >>> >> co-reference resolution but I think also with dependency trees > because > >>> I > >>> >> also need to know the Subject of the sentence and the object that it > >>> >> affects, right? > >>> >> > >>> >> Given that I need to extend the Stanford NLP API in Stanbol for > >>> >> co-reference and dependency trees, how do I proceed with this? Do I > >>> create > >>> >> 2 new sub-tasks to the already opened Jira? After that can I start > >>> >> implementing on my local copy of Stanbol and when I'm done I'll send > >>> you > >>> >> guys the patch fo review? > >>> >> > >>> > >>> I would create two "New Feature" type Issues one for adding support > >>> for "dependency trees" and the other for "co-reference" support. You > >>> should also define "depends on" relations between STANBOL-1121 and > >>> those two new issues. > >>> > >>> Sub-task could also work, but as adding those features would be also > >>> interesting for other things I would rather define them as separate > >>> issues. > >>> > >>> > >> 2 New Features connected with the original jira it is then. > >> > >> > >>> If you would prefer to work in an own branch please tell me. This > >>> could have the advantage that patches would not be affected by changes > >>> in the trunk. > >>> > >>> Yes, a separate branch sounds good. > >> > >> best > >>> Rupert > >>> > >>> >> Regards, > >>> >> Cristian > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> 2013/6/18 Rupert Westenthaler <rupert.westentha...@gmail.com> > >>> >> > >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 10:18 PM, Cristian Petroaca > >>> >>> <cristian.petro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> > Hi Rupert, > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Agreed on the > >>> SettingAnnotation/ParticipantAnnotation/OccurentAnnotation > >>> >>> > data structure. > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Should I open up a Jira for all of this in order to encapsulate > this > >>> >>> > information and establish the goals and these initial steps > towards > >>> >>> these > >>> >>> > goals? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Yes please. A JIRA issue for this work would be great. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > How should I proceed further? Should I create some design > documents > >>> that > >>> >>> > need to be reviewed? > >>> >>> > >>> >>> Usually it is the best to write design related text directly in > JIRA > >>> >>> by using Markdown [1] syntax. This will allow us later to use this > >>> >>> text directly for the documentation on the Stanbol Webpage. > >>> >>> > >>> >>> best > >>> >>> Rupert > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> [1] http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > Regards, > >>> >>> > Cristian > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> > 2013/6/17 Rupert Westenthaler <rupert.westentha...@gmail.com> > >>> >>> > > >>> >>> >> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Cristian Petroaca > >>> >>> >> <cristian.petro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> >> > HI Rupert, > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > First of all thanks for the detailed suggestions. > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > 2013/6/12 Rupert Westenthaler <rupert.westentha...@gmail.com> > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> >> Hi Cristian, all > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> really interesting use case! > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> In this mail I will try to give some suggestions on how this > >>> could > >>> >>> >> >> work out. This suggestions are mainly based on experiences > and > >>> >>> lessons > >>> >>> >> >> learned in the LIVE [2] project where we built an information > >>> system > >>> >>> >> >> for the Olympic Games in Peking. While this Project excluded > the > >>> >>> >> >> extraction of Events from unstructured text (because the > Olympic > >>> >>> >> >> Information System was already providing event data as XML > >>> messages) > >>> >>> >> >> the semantic search capabilities of this system where very > >>> similar > >>> >>> as > >>> >>> >> >> the one described by your use case. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> IMHO you are not only trying to extract relations, but a > formal > >>> >>> >> >> representation of the situation described by the text. So > lets > >>> >>> assume > >>> >>> >> >> that the goal is to Annotate a Setting (or Situation) > described > >>> in > >>> >>> the > >>> >>> >> >> text - a fise:SettingAnnotation. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> The DOLCE foundational ontology [1] gives some advices on > how to > >>> >>> model > >>> >>> >> >> those. The important relation for modeling this > Participation: > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> PC(x, y, t) → (ED(x) ∧ PD(y) ∧ T(t)) > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> where .. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> * ED are Endurants (continuants): Endurants do have an > >>> identity so > >>> >>> we > >>> >>> >> >> would typically refer to them as Entities referenced by a > >>> setting. > >>> >>> >> >> Note that this includes physical, non-physical as well as > >>> >>> >> >> social-objects. > >>> >>> >> >> * PD are Perdurants (occurrents): Perdurants are entities > that > >>> >>> >> >> happen in time. This refers to Events, Activities ... > >>> >>> >> >> * PC are Participation: It is an time indexed relation where > >>> >>> >> >> Endurants participate in Perdurants > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> Modeling this in RDF requires to define some intermediate > >>> resources > >>> >>> >> >> because RDF does not allow for n-ary relations. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> * fise:SettingAnnotation: It is really handy to define one > >>> resource > >>> >>> >> >> being the context for all described data. I would call this > >>> >>> >> >> "fise:SettingAnnotation" and define it as a sub-concept to > >>> >>> >> >> fise:Enhancement. All further enhancement about the extracted > >>> >>> Setting > >>> >>> >> >> would define a "fise:in-setting" relation to it. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> * fise:ParticipantAnnotation: Is used to annotate that > >>> Endurant is > >>> >>> >> >> participating on a setting (fise:in-setting > >>> fise:SettingAnnotation). > >>> >>> >> >> The Endurant itself is described by existing > fise:TextAnnotaion > >>> (the > >>> >>> >> >> mentions) and fise:EntityAnnotation (suggested Entities). > >>> Basically > >>> >>> >> >> the fise:ParticipantAnnotation will allow an > EnhancementEngine > >>> to > >>> >>> >> >> state that several mentions (in possible different > sentences) do > >>> >>> >> >> represent the same Endurant as participating in the Setting. > In > >>> >>> >> >> addition it would be possible to use the dc:type property > >>> (similar > >>> >>> as > >>> >>> >> >> for fise:TextAnnotation) to refer to the role(s) of an > >>> participant > >>> >>> >> >> (e.g. the set: Agent (intensionally performs an action) Cause > >>> >>> >> >> (unintentionally e.g. a mud slide), Patient (a passive role > in > >>> an > >>> >>> >> >> activity) and Instrument (aids an process)), but I am > wondering > >>> if > >>> >>> one > >>> >>> >> >> could extract those information. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> * fise:OccurrentAnnotation: is used to annotate a Perdurant > in > >>> the > >>> >>> >> >> context of the Setting. Also fise:OccurrentAnnotation can > link > >>> to > >>> >>> >> >> fise:TextAnnotaion (typically verbs in the text defining the > >>> >>> >> >> perdurant) as well as fise:EntityAnnotation suggesting well > >>> known > >>> >>> >> >> Events in a knowledge base (e.g. a Election in a country, or > an > >>> >>> >> >> upraising ...). In addition fise:OccurrentAnnotation can > define > >>> >>> >> >> dc:has-participant links to fise:ParticipantAnnotation. In > this > >>> case > >>> >>> >> >> it is explicitly stated hat an Endurant (the > >>> >>> >> >> fise:ParticipantAnnotation) involved in this Perturant (the > >>> >>> >> >> fise:OccurrentAnnotation). As Occurrences are temporal > indexed > >>> this > >>> >>> >> >> annotation should also support properties for defining the > >>> >>> >> >> xsd:dateTime for the start/end. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> Indeed, an event based data structure makes a lot of sense > with > >>> the > >>> >>> >> remark > >>> >>> >> > that you probably won't be able to always extract the date > for a > >>> >>> given > >>> >>> >> > setting(situation). > >>> >>> >> > There are 2 thing which are unclear though. > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > 1. Perdurant : You could have situations in which the object > upon > >>> >>> which > >>> >>> >> the > >>> >>> >> > Subject ( or Endurant ) is acting is not a transitory object ( > >>> such > >>> >>> as an > >>> >>> >> > event, activity ) but rather another Endurant. For example we > can > >>> >>> have > >>> >>> >> the > >>> >>> >> > phrase "USA invades Irak" where "USA" is the Endurant ( > Subject ) > >>> >>> which > >>> >>> >> > performs the action of "invading" on another Eundurant, namely > >>> >>> "Irak". > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> By using CAOS, USA would be the Agent and Iraq the Patient. Both > >>> are > >>> >>> >> Endurants. The activity "invading" would be the Perdurant. So > >>> ideally > >>> >>> >> you would have a "fise:SettingAnnotation" with: > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> * fise:ParticipantAnnotation for USA with the dc:type > caos:Agent, > >>> >>> >> linking to a fise:TextAnnotation for "USA" and a > >>> fise:EntityAnnotation > >>> >>> >> linking to dbpedia:United_States > >>> >>> >> * fise:ParticipantAnnotation for Iraq with the dc:type > >>> caos:Patient, > >>> >>> >> linking to a fise:TextAnnotation for "Irak" and a > >>> >>> >> fise:EntityAnnotation linking to dbpedia:Iraq > >>> >>> >> * fise:OccurrentAnnotation for "invades" with the dc:type > >>> >>> >> caos:Activity, linking to a fise:TextAnnotation for "invades" > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > 2. Where does the verb, which links the Subject and the Object > >>> come > >>> >>> into > >>> >>> >> > this? I imagined that the Endurant would have a dc:"property" > >>> where > >>> >>> the > >>> >>> >> > property = verb which links to the Object in noun form. For > >>> example > >>> >>> take > >>> >>> >> > again the sentence "USA invades Irak". You would have the > "USA" > >>> >>> Entity > >>> >>> >> with > >>> >>> >> > dc:invader which points to the Object "Irak". The Endurant > would > >>> >>> have as > >>> >>> >> > many dc:"property" elements as there are verbs which link it > to > >>> an > >>> >>> >> Object. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> As explained above you would have a fise:OccurrentAnnotation > that > >>> >>> >> represents the Perdurant. The information that the activity > >>> mention in > >>> >>> >> the text is "invades" would be by linking to a > >>> fise:TextAnnotation. If > >>> >>> >> you can also provide an Ontology for Tasks that defines > >>> >>> >> "myTasks:invade" the fise:OccurrentAnnotation could also link > to an > >>> >>> >> fise:EntityAnnotation for this concept. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> best > >>> >>> >> Rupert > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > ### Consuming the data: > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> I think this model should be sufficient for use-cases as > >>> described > >>> >>> by > >>> >>> >> you. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> Users would be able to consume data on the setting level. > This > >>> can > >>> >>> be > >>> >>> >> >> done my simple retrieving all fise:ParticipantAnnotation as > >>> well as > >>> >>> >> >> fise:OccurrentAnnotation linked with a setting. BTW this was > the > >>> >>> >> >> approach used in LIVE [2] for semantic search. It allows > >>> queries for > >>> >>> >> >> Settings that involve specific Entities e.g. you could filter > >>> for > >>> >>> >> >> Settings that involve a {Person}, activities:Arrested and a > >>> specific > >>> >>> >> >> {Upraising}. However note that with this approach you will > get > >>> >>> results > >>> >>> >> >> for Setting where the {Person} participated and an other > person > >>> was > >>> >>> >> >> arrested. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> An other possibility would be to process enhancement results > on > >>> the > >>> >>> >> >> fise:OccurrentAnnotation. This would allow to a much higher > >>> >>> >> >> granularity level (e.g. it would allow to correctly answer > the > >>> query > >>> >>> >> >> used as an example above). But I am wondering if the quality > of > >>> the > >>> >>> >> >> Setting extraction will be sufficient for this. I have also > >>> doubts > >>> >>> if > >>> >>> >> >> this can be still realized by using semantic indexing to > Apache > >>> Solr > >>> >>> >> >> or if it would be better/necessary to store results in a > >>> TripleStore > >>> >>> >> >> and using SPARQL for retrieval. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> The methodology and query language used by YAGO [3] is also > very > >>> >>> >> >> relevant for this (especially note chapter 7 SPOTL(X) > >>> >>> Representation). > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> An other related Topic is the enrichment of Entities > (especially > >>> >>> >> >> Events) in knowledge bases based on Settings extracted form > >>> >>> Documents. > >>> >>> >> >> As per definition - in DOLCE - Perdurants are temporal > indexed. > >>> That > >>> >>> >> >> means that at the time when added to a knowledge base they > might > >>> >>> still > >>> >>> >> >> be in process. So the creation, enriching and refinement of > such > >>> >>> >> >> Entities in a the knowledge base seams to be critical for a > >>> System > >>> >>> >> >> like described in your use-case. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Cristian Petroaca > >>> >>> >> >> <cristian.petro...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> >>> >> >> > > >>> >>> >> >> > First of all I have to mention that I am new in the field > of > >>> >>> semantic > >>> >>> >> >> > technologies, I've started to read about them in the last > 4-5 > >>> >>> >> >> months.Having > >>> >>> >> >> > said that I have a high level overview of what is a good > >>> approach > >>> >>> to > >>> >>> >> >> solve > >>> >>> >> >> > this problem. There are a number of papers on the internet > >>> which > >>> >>> >> describe > >>> >>> >> >> > what steps need to be taken such as : named entity > >>> recognition, > >>> >>> >> >> > co-reference resolution, pos tagging and others. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> The Stanbol NLP processing module currently only supports > >>> sentence > >>> >>> >> >> detection, tokenization, POS tagging, Chunking, NER and > lemma. > >>> >>> support > >>> >>> >> >> for co-reference resolution and dependency trees is currently > >>> >>> missing. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> Stanford NLP is already integrated with Stanbol [4]. At the > >>> moment > >>> >>> it > >>> >>> >> >> only supports English, but I do already work to include the > >>> other > >>> >>> >> >> supported languages. Other NLP framework that is already > >>> integrated > >>> >>> >> >> with Stanbol are Freeling [5] and Talismane [6]. But note > that > >>> for > >>> >>> all > >>> >>> >> >> those the integration excludes support for co-reference and > >>> >>> dependency > >>> >>> >> >> trees. > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> Anyways I am confident that one can implement a first > prototype > >>> by > >>> >>> >> >> only using Sentences and POS tags and - if available - Chunks > >>> (e.g. > >>> >>> >> >> Noun phrases). > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > I assume that in the Stanbol context, a feature like Relation > >>> >>> extraction > >>> >>> >> > would be implemented as an EnhancementEngine? > >>> >>> >> > What kind of effort would be required for a co-reference > >>> resolution > >>> >>> tool > >>> >>> >> > integration into Stanbol? > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Yes in the end it would be an EnhancementEngine. But before we > can > >>> >>> >> build such an engine we would need to > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> * extend the Stanbol NLP processing API with Annotations for > >>> >>> co-reference > >>> >>> >> * add support for JSON Serialisation/Parsing for those > annotation > >>> so > >>> >>> >> that the RESTful NLP Analysis Service can provide co-reference > >>> >>> >> information > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > At this moment I'll be focusing on 2 aspects: > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > 1. Determine the best data structure to encapsulate the > extracted > >>> >>> >> > information. I'll take a closer look at Dolce. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Don't make to to complex. Defining a proper structure to > represent > >>> >>> >> Events will only pay-off if we can also successfully extract > such > >>> >>> >> information form processed texts. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> I would start with > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> * fise:SettingAnnotation > >>> >>> >> * {fise:Enhancement} metadata > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> * fise:ParticipantAnnotation > >>> >>> >> * {fise:Enhancement} metadata > >>> >>> >> * fise:inSetting {settingAnnotation} > >>> >>> >> * fise:hasMention {textAnnotation} > >>> >>> >> * fise:suggestion {entityAnnotation} (multiple if there are > >>> more > >>> >>> >> suggestions) > >>> >>> >> * dc:type one of fise:Agent, fise:Patient, fise:Instrument, > >>> >>> fise:Cause > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> * fise:OccurrentAnnotation > >>> >>> >> * {fise:Enhancement} metadata > >>> >>> >> * fise:inSetting {settingAnnotation} > >>> >>> >> * fise:hasMention {textAnnotation} > >>> >>> >> * dc:type set to fise:Activity > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> If it turns out that we can extract more, we can add more > >>> structure to > >>> >>> >> those annotations. We might also think about using an own > namespace > >>> >>> >> for those extensions to the annotation structure. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > 2. Determine how should all of this be integrated into > Stanbol. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> Just create an EventExtractionEngine and configure a enhancement > >>> chain > >>> >>> >> that does NLP processing and EntityLinking. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> You should have a look at > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> * SentimentSummarizationEngine [1] as it does a lot of things > with > >>> NLP > >>> >>> >> processing results (e.g. connecting adjectives (via verbs) to > >>> >>> >> nouns/pronouns. So as long we can not use explicit dependency > trees > >>> >>> >> you code will need to do similar things with Nouns, Pronouns and > >>> >>> >> Verbs. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> * Disambigutation-MLT engine, as it creates a Java > representation > >>> of > >>> >>> >> present fise:TextAnnotation and fise:EntityAnnotation [2]. > >>> Something > >>> >>> >> similar will also be required by the EventExtractionEngine for > fast > >>> >>> >> access to such annotations while iterating over the Sentences of > >>> the > >>> >>> >> text. > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> best > >>> >>> >> Rupert > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> [1] > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stanbol/trunk/enhancement-engines/sentiment-summarization/src/main/java/org/apache/stanbol/enhancer/engines/sentiment/summarize/SentimentSummarizationEngine.java > >>> >>> >> [2] > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/stanbol/trunk/enhancement-engines/disambiguation-mlt/src/main/java/org/apache/stanbol/enhancer/engine/disambiguation/mlt/DisambiguationData.java > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > Thanks > >>> >>> >> > > >>> >>> >> > Hope this helps to bootstrap this discussion > >>> >>> >> >> best > >>> >>> >> >> Rupert > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> >> -- > >>> >>> >> >> | Rupert Westenthaler > rupert.westentha...@gmail.com > >>> >>> >> >> | Bodenlehenstraße 11 > >>> ++43-699-11108907 > >>> >>> >> >> | A-5500 Bischofshofen > >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> >> -- > >>> >>> >> | Rupert Westenthaler rupert.westentha...@gmail.com > >>> >>> >> | Bodenlehenstraße 11 > >>> ++43-699-11108907 > >>> >>> >> | A-5500 Bischofshofen > >>> >>> >> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> > >>> >>> -- > >>> >>> | Rupert Westenthaler rupert.westentha...@gmail.com > >>> >>> | Bodenlehenstraße 11 > ++43-699-11108907 > >>> >>> | A-5500 Bischofshofen > >>> >>> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> | Rupert Westenthaler rupert.westentha...@gmail.com > >>> | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 > >>> | A-5500 Bischofshofen > >>> > >> > >> > > > > -- > | Rupert Westenthaler rupert.westentha...@gmail.com > | Bodenlehenstraße 11 ++43-699-11108907 > | A-5500 Bischofshofen >
