Disambiguation of Natural-language Terms in Business Semantics Engineering


De Leenheer, P. and de Moor, A. (2005) Context-driven Disambiguation in Ontology Elicitation. In Shvaiko P. & Euzenat J.,(eds.), Context and Ontologies: Theory, Practice and Applications, AAAI Technical Report WS-05-01 (Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania), AAAI Press, pp. 17–24.

dogma_method

Illustration of the two levels in DOGMA ontology: on the left -- the lexical level, lexons are elicited from various contexts. On the right, there is the conceptual level consisting of a concept definition server. The meaning ladder in between illustrates the articulation of lexical terms into concept definitions.

Ontologies represent rich semantics in a lexical way. Lexical labels are used to identify concepts and relationships, though there is no bijective mapping between them. Phenomenons such as synonyms and homonyms exemplify this, and can result in frustrating misunderstanding and ambiguity. In the elicitation and application of ontologies, the meaning of the ontological knowledge is dependent on the context. We consider the role of context in ontology elicitation by introducing context in a concept definition server for ontology representation. We also adopt other features of context found in literature, such as packaging of knowledge, aligning elements of different contexts, and reasoning about contexts. Finally, we illustrate context-driven ontology elicitation with a real world case study.

This paper was further extended in Journal of Data Semantics. See my related blog in this. In our business semantics management approach, disambiguation forms an important but difficult exercise during the consolidation activities.

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , ,

2 Responses to “Disambiguation of Natural-language Terms in Business Semantics Engineering”

  1. The Virtue of Naming concepts: AdditionsOtherThanThroughBusinessCombinationsCopyrightsPatentsAndOtherIndustrialPropertyRightsServiceAndOperatingRights « Dr. Pieter De Leenheer Says:

    […] is an inexorable construct when representing ontologies. As I already discussed in an earlier publication. Particularly when stakeholders in a community use a different vocabulary to refer to the common […]

  2. The Virtue of Naming concepts Says:

    […] is an inexorable construct when representing ontologies. As I already discussed in an earlier publication. Particularly when stakeholders in a community use a different vocabulary to refer to the common […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: