Journal of Intelligent Information Systems

, Volume 29, Issue 3, pp 305–327 | Cite as

Context recognition using internet as a knowledge base



Context recognition is an important component of the common sense knowledge problem, which is one of the key research areas in the field of Artificial Intelligence. The paper develops a model of context recognition using the Internet as a knowledge base. The use of the Internet as a database for context recognition gives a context recognition model immediate access to a nearly infinite amount of data in a multiplicity of fields. Context is represented here as any textual description that is most commonly selected by a set of subjects to describe a given situation. The model input is based on any aspect of the situation that can be translated into text (such as: voice recognition, image recognition, facial expression interpretation, and smell identification). The research model is based on the streaming in text format of information that represents situations—Internet chats, e-mails, Shakespeare plays, or article abstracts. The comparison of the results of the algorithm with the results of human subjects yielded a very high agreement and correlation. The results showed there was no significant difference in the determination of context between the algorithm and the human subjects.


Record classification Retrieval models Metadata Information filtering Text analysis Knowledge retrieval 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. AAAI (1999). Workshop on reasoning in context for AI applications (Workshop Series Tech. Rep. No. WS-99-14). Menlo Park: AAAI.Google Scholar
  2. Aitchison, J., Gilchrist, A., & Bawden, D. (1997). Thesaurus construction and use: A practical manual (3rd ed.). London: Aslib.Google Scholar
  3. Arens, Y., Knoblock, C. A., & Shen, W. (1996). Query reformulation for dynamic information integration. In G. Wiederhold (Ed.), Intelligent integration of information (pp. 11–42). Boston: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  4. Assadi, H. (1998). Construction of a regional ontology from text and its use within a documentary system. Proceedings of the International Conference on Formal Ontology and Information Systems (FOIS-98). Amsterdam: IOS.Google Scholar
  5. Buvac, S. (1996). Resolving lexical ambiguity using a formal theory of context, semantic ambiguity and underspecification. CLSI lecture notes (pp. 1–24).Google Scholar
  6. Carver, N., & Lesser, V. (1992). Blackboard systems for knowledge-based signal understanding. In A. Oppenheim & H. Nawab (Eds.), Symbolic and knowledge-based signal processing (pp. 205–250). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  7. Dumais, S., & Chen, H. (2000). Hierarchical classification of web content. Proceedings of SIGIR, 23rd ACM International Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, Athens (pp. 256–263).Google Scholar
  8. Ein-Dor, P. (1999). Artificial intelligence: A short history and the next forty years. In K. E. Kendall (Ed.), Emerging information technologies. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  9. Erman, L., Hayes-Roth, F., Lesser, V., & Reddy, D. R. (1980). The hearsay II speech understanding system: Integrating knowledge to resolve uncertainty. Computing Surveys, 12(2), 213–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gal, A. (1999). Semantic interoperability in information services: Experiencing with CoopWARE. SIGMOD Record, 28(1), 68–75.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  11. Guha, R. V. (1991). Contexts: A formalization and some applications. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, Stanford, CT, USA (STAN-CS-91-1399-Thesis).Google Scholar
  12. Hayes-Roth, B. (1985). A blackboard architecture for control. Artificial Intelligence, 26, 251–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahng, J., & McLeod, D. (1996). Dynamic classification ontologies for discovery in cooperative federated databases. Proceedings of the First IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS’96), Brussels, Belgium (pp. 26–35). Belgium.Google Scholar
  14. Lesser, V., Fennell, R., Erman, L., & Reddy, D. R. (1975). Organization of the Hearsay II speech understanding system. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, ASSP-23, 11–24.Google Scholar
  15. McCarthy, J. (1987). Generality in artificial intelligence. Communication of ACM, 30, 1030–1035.MATHCrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  16. McCarthy, J., & Buvac, S. (1997). Formalizing context, computing natural language (pp. 13–50). Stanford: Stanford University.Google Scholar
  17. Mena, E., Kashyap, V., Illarramendi, A., & Sheth, A. P. (2000). Imprecise answers in distributed environments: Estimation of information loss for multi-ontology based query processing. International Journal of Cooperative Information Systems, 9(4), 403–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Modica, G., Gal, A., & Jamil, H. M. (2001). The use of machine-generated ontologies in dynamic information seeking. Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS 2001), Trento.Google Scholar
  19. Motro, A., & Rakov, I. (1998). Estimating the quality of databases. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 1495, 298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Moulton, A., Madnick, S. E., & Siegel, M. (1998). Context mediation on wall street. Proceedings of the 3rd IFCIS International Conference on Cooperative Information Systems (CoopIS’98) (pp. 271–279). New York: IEEE-CS.Google Scholar
  21. Ouksel, A. M., & Naiman, C. F. (1994). Coordinating context building in heterogeneous information systems. Journal of Intelligent Information Systems, 3(2), 151–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Papatheodorou, C., Vassiliou, A., & Simon, B. (2002). Discovery of ontologies for learning resources using word-based clustering. Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA 2002), Denver, CO (pp. 1523–1528).Google Scholar
  23. Rijsbergen, C. J. (1979). Information Retrieval (2nd ed.). London: Butterworths.Google Scholar
  24. Salton, G. (1989). Automatic text processing: The transformation, analysis, and retrieval of information by a computer. Reading: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Salton, G., & McGill, M. J. (1983). Introduction to modern information retrieval. New York: McGraw-Hill.MATHGoogle Scholar
  26. Schuyler, P. L., Hole, W. T., & Tuttle, M. S. (1993). The UMLS (Unified Medical Language System) metathesaurus: Representing different views of biomedical concepts. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 81, 217–222.Google Scholar
  27. Smith, H., & Poulter, K. (1999). Share the ontology in XML-based trading architectures. Communications of the ACM, 42(3), 110–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Soergel, D. (1985). Organizing information: Principles of data base and retrieval systems. Orlando: Academic.Google Scholar
  29. Turney, P. (2002). Mining the web for lexical knowledge to improve keyphrase extraction: Learning from labeled and unlabeled data. (Tech. Rep. No. ERB-1096; NRC #44947). Washington, DC: National Research Council, Institute for Information Technology.Google Scholar
  30. Valdes-Perez, R. E., & Pereira, F. (2000). Concise, intelligible, and approximate profiling of multiple classes. International Journal of Human Computer Studies, 53, 411–436.MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Williams, T., Lowrance, J., Hanson, A., & Riseman, E. (1977). Model-building in the VISIONS system. Proceedings of IJCAI-77, Cambridge, MA (pp. 644–645).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Industrial Engineering and ManagementTechnionHaifaIsrael
  2. 2.Faculty of ManagementTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael

Personalised recommendations